Poll: Do you want a separate term for homosexual marriage?

In My Humble Opinion
21

If by “similar legal status” you are assuming it’s not the same, then it’s a different thing, and I guess it should be called something else. However, in my opinion, it should be the same thing and be called the same thing. (I’m hetero.)

22
  1. No
  2. Yes

I’d go along with kunilou’s idea that “marriage” refers to the ceremony and “civil union” refers the, um, domestic status of two people. But gender doesn’t make any difference.

23
  1. don’t care
  2. yes

and 3) It really doesn’t matter to me unless it matters to the homosexuals who are getting married, I 'm pretty flexible. So if the people being married want to be called “civilly unionized” or whatever, just let me know and I’ll call them that.

24

Question is wrong.

The state should get out of marriage altogether and only license "domestic partnerships for purely legal reasons (insurance, property, inheritance, etc.)

25
  1. No
  2. Yes
26
  1. Yes
  2. No

Marriage hasn’t worked all that well for hetero’s (50% divorce rate?!) so I think we should come up with a better description.
I would prefer something along the lines of “Partneriage”, with a mandatory pre-nup.

It would be as legally binding as traditional heterosexual unions, but with a rational, binding, contractual foundation. Just like a marriage licence, but with brains. Thus, if things shouldn’t work out, the break up will be painful on a personal level, but will not resort in a traditional hetero mud slinging in court.

27

1: No, no other term is necessary. I think many gay people would say that they don’t care so much about the title, and that the important thing is that they get the legal and social benefits that come with marriage for heterosexuals. I say if it walks like a duck… I can’t think of any good reason not to call it marriage anyway.

2: Yes, I’m straight.

28
  1. No
  2. Yes
29
  1. No
  2. Yes

I’d put up with a different naming convention for gay unions for a time in order to speed their universal legal recognition. To extend TeaElle’s analogy, it’s better to have a separate drinking fountain for you than for there to be only one fountain, if you’re not allowed to drink from it.

30

I’d rather bring my own water, than drink from a separate fountain.

  1. No.
  2. No.
31

Marriage sounds fine if you had a “church service”
Ceremony seems fine if you had it performed any other way.
(This goes for both gay and straight weddings)

I’m straight.

32

  1. Similar to what RTFirefly said, the idealist side of me me is repulsed by the idea of separate but equal, but the pragmatist side recognizes that a halfway point may be necessary to actually make it happen, if the voting public overall is too resistant to an all-or-nothing approach right off the bat. For the purposes of this poll, my answer is no, I don’t want it called something else.

  2. Yes, I am heterosexual.

33

  1. Couldn’t care less.

  2. Yes.

34

  1. No.

  2. Yes.

I’m also vaguely offended by the idea that the term marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies, but this thread wasn’t started to debate, so I’ll reserve my opinions on that.

35
  1. No, religion has nothing to do with it.
  2. Yes
36

No and yes.

37

No and yes.

38
  1. no
  2. yes
39

  1. Yes. It is more likely to happen if a different term is used.

  2. Yes. I am starting to plan a huge ‘civil union’ with my current OS spouse for our tenth anniversary, kind of like renewing one’s vows in church.

After all, if marriage is defined as a hetero-only union designed to protect children, my marriage is invalid.
(Boy, are some of the relatives going to be horrified.)

40

What kunilou said. And also what RTF said. And what j66 said.

  1. Yes. Call it a civil union unless it’s performed in a church.
  2. Yes.