Okay, magellan01, I’ll bite. I skimmed through everything, but I’ve got the gist.
Your argument is predicated upon the idea that a civil union has been demonstrated, in other countries, to be equal while using a different term. Netherlands is a good example of this. Their civil unions afforded the same rights until they passed the law allowing same-sex marriage.
So they will have identical laws while having two different terms. Furthermore, you haven’t provided any reason underlying why you believe this is correct (religion, philosophical beliefs, etc).
So let’s look at how a civil union works right now in the US. With the exceptions of three states (Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois), civil unions are afforded only to same-sex couples. Civil unions have no legal recognition by the federal government currently, whereas marriage does.
So, your stance would be to amend the laws of civil unions to reflect those already represented by marriage? That is a horribly litigious position to take, assuming that you have no moral quandaries with same sex couples and affording them the same rights in the first place. Your solution would require the federal government to enact a whole new set of laws to recognize same-sex couples, and provide them the same rights. While you claim they would be the same laws, they cannot be because of the way our legal system works.
Would it not be a simpler solution to just call marriage legal to all people? It cuts down on the legal redtape.
As is having two things two things that, under the law, are exactly the same thing but having different names.
If a civil union, under the law, is exactly the same as marriage, why not just call it marriage.
There is no logical, rational reason to refer to two things that are exactly the same by two different terms. The only reason to refer to two identical things by two separate names is that those two things are not identical.
what’s the point of these threads. You get two or three people giving their arguments and then 95% of the posts say “thet don’t like it because icky/god/butsex” or simply giving their pro arguments.
In everyday usage, people would call it marriage! You’d have a steadily dwindling subspecies of grammar fascist who would correct them – “Joe and John got married yesterday.” “No they didn’t! They entered into a civil union!” “Yeah, yeah, whatever.” Before very long, the legal distinction would fade to the level of an utterly ignored blue law.
It all boils down to opinion, but I’ve no problem with it. And I don’t think anyone really wants the majority of the population to dictate what they can and can’t do, beyond directly illegal things, they just don’t see the hypocrisy of telling others they can’t, when they know full well, if they wanted something that was completely natural and not destructive to order, like people murdering each other, they wouldn’t want to have their actions dictated by the majority.
Quickly, I think that those concerned with the plight of SS couples should be advocating my position. You are correct that your way might be easier, but I’m trying to satisfy what I think are two worthy objectives: One is that SS couples be afforded the legal rights and privileges of OS couples: hospital visitation, inheritance laws, etc. Two: that we always recognize the ideal situation in which children are raised. I think the marriage has been an incredibly important and helpful institution. It represents an ideal. It’s a common denominator for nature and the societies that sprung of it. Society’s acknowledgement of the natural coming together of man and woman, if you will. Having these unions recognized publicly is the foundation of families. It’s both a nurturing and stabilizing force. A societal “good”.
So, I look for a way to have both these things. Civil Unions fit the bill. SS couples get all the privileges and benefits of OS couples. And the traditional concept of marriage is not diluted by including in the definition anything other than one man/one woman.
I certainly understand the opposing position. What I don’t understand is why people get so up in arms about what I propose. I understand that we share only one of my two goals. But my additional goal is hardly a bad thing, except for some of the more rabid lefties. I guess. Like I said, it’s bewildering to me.
Please show us how the Hague Marriage Convention recognizes civil unions as well as marriages or do you propose that international law needs to be amended as well to fulfill this foolhardy idea of yours.
I’m curious why magellan is baffled by our objections to civil unions as a flawed compromise and not stunned by the 20 or so states that passed laws to flat-out ban civil unions and similar structures entirely.
If his proposal is so reasonable, it’s not us he has to convince.
SS couples and anyone who believes in freedom, liberty, and equality, should be advocating for equal recognition of all couples, in that they can be married or otherwise.
I doubt it; it would be too useful as lawsuit-fodder. It would be brought up over and over by people who want to dispute some legal issue related to marriage because the relevant law says “marriage” and not “civil union”. And then there’s the problem that civil unions don’t travel, unlike marriages; travel to another state or another country and as far as the law is concerned you are just two strangers, not a married couple.
And that completely ignores how the bigots would work to ensure that “civil unions” are inferior to “marriages”, since after all that is the point of a civil union.
If this is the logic, then we should use marriage for any couples who are raising children and civil union for any couples who, for whatever reason, are not raising children.
As presented, thus far, your proposal does not actually have any bearing on child-raising, just on the relative sexes of the partners. So heterosexual older couples, sterile couples, and couples who choose not to have children are identified by “marriage” even though child-rearing has no bearing on their relationship. However, homosexual couples who raise children by way of adoption, surrogate parents, or the re-forming of a couple where one or both had children from a previous relationship are identified by “civil union” even though raising children is, indeed, a central aspect of their relationship.
The law of unintended consequences seems to have overtaken your proposal, here.
Okay, I accept the possibility. He’s probably ignoring me, so could you ask him on my behalf how he feels about states that moved to not only ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well?
Yes, I’m prepared to amend my statements/positions if they don’t stand to reason. I’ll amend the scenario once more if you like: what if only one set of sibling lovers reproduced out of every hundred?
I’ll also refer to the basic question: Should brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters be eligible to marry?
I’d be less okay if some brother-sister pairings were legal and others were not, on specious grounds like it might make society more lustful or some such nonsense.
It’s ‘sacred’ in the same way geometry is ‘sacred’, and not in the cheesy ‘new age’ way (I would argue a triangle is as sacred as a crop circle).
Oh, let’s not get started on all the problems marriage faces.
Contagious? No, but much depends on how one views sexuality For me, sexuality is actually neither chosen nor inborn, but the sum total of one’s responses to sexual experiences. We naturally follow those paths that we discover to bring pleasure. As gay sex becomes more popular, more people are likely to try it, and adopt it as a devoted lifestyle (of course, plenty won’t). ‘They say’ that gays are 10% of a human population; to claim that it is a constant percentage seems somewhat arbitrary. What percentage of non-procreative sexual activity in a human population could such a population bear, vis a vis the degree of reproductive decline, 20%? How about 30%
Again, marriage is not serving its purpose very well these days, if the declining birthrates and number of out-of-wedlock births of first world countries are any indicator. Our tools only serve us as well as we keep them. However, there are many factors at work in this.
How about a couple of good friends who share a platonic love and wish to spend their lives together, arguing over which Star Trek is the true Trek and dressing up like Japanese cartoon characters (joking, of course!), and perhaps even adopt some kids?
Who shall we place in charge of testing every single heterosexual couple every month to make sure they can still procreate? Will older men be able to drop their post-menopausal wives like rocks?
Slavery benefits only a few; designated responsibilities for children benefit everyone.
Well, I’m glad somebody’s compiling a typology of those who don’t buy into gay marriage! (Remember: a lower-care ‘s’ for ‘steabo’)
Yes, I mentioned ‘sexual delight’ and ‘sensual pleasure’, but I also mentioned ‘care’. I get the fact that gay couples are in love, but what distinguishes a gay coupling from a really great friendship, except the sex? Should we open up all the prestige and benefits of marriage to good friends who share a platonic love (with no sex) and would like to care for each other for the rest of their lives, and even adopt a few children?
One could make the distinction between platonic lovers and gay lovers by citing the fact that the former don’t have sex with each other and the latter do, and I would agree, saying that physical lovemaking reinforces the emotional bond between the lovers, and this is not a ‘frivolous’ difference. These relationships are not ‘separate but equal’ (SBE); they are ‘separate because unequal’ (SBU).
However, to the same degree that platonic pairs and gay pairs are unequal because of the sexual aspect of their relationship, so too are gay couples and straight couples because of the procreative aspect, for the fact that the former necessarily rely on third-party providers for the procurement of their children, and that the latter are capable, by the very sexuality they practice, to produce children that they alone will be solely and equally responsible for, and that nobody outside of their relationship will be able to make any claims on.
This is an objective difference, and it is the basis for my arguments in favor both of marriage and of civil unions. Then again, perhaps it doesn’t belong in a thread entitled: Arguments ‘against’ gay marriage…
