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

In My Humble Opinion
41

  1. Heck no – and if a homosexual marriage is not called going to be called marriage, then I want a new name for my marraige too.

  2. Yes, hetero and married.

42
  1. No.
  2. Yes.

We call a lifelong commitment a marriage, just as we call a lending institution a library. Libraries are no longer restricted to lending only books, though that may have been the original intention; marriages need no longer be restricted to heterosexuals either.

43

No, I don’t think that a union of body, mind and soul should be treated any differently just because the participants are both male or both female. Nor do I think that a relationship held to be legal/valid in the eyes of state, insurance company and taxation office should reflect the genders involved.

Yes, I am straight. A little bent, but largely straight.

44
  1. No, I want it to be called marriage. Anything else smacks of Jim Crow separate-but-equal nonsense.
  2. No, I’m gay.
45

1.) No, marriage is fine. This whole seperate name thing strikes me like looking at two sweater, one made of wool and the other of cotton. They’re exactly alike, except for the material used, so nobody claims only the wool one is a real sweater and demands a new name for the cotton one, right?

2.) I’m one of them thar hetrosexshuls.

46

  1. No. I do not believe it will happen any sooner by using a different term. I also don’t want to open the door for someone to create a lesser legal union between homosexuals because their marriages are “different”.

  2. Yes.

47

What’s with all the “not a marriage unless it’s in church” thing? There’s no religious monopoly on the word, you know.

48
  1. No
  2. Yes

How does what anyone else, gay or straight, chooses to call their marriage possibly affect me and my impending marriage? (Which will not be a religious ceremony, but will be a marriage with the attending lifelong commitment all the same)

Julie

49
  1. No
  2. Yes, and married.

My wife and I have no intention of having children … which, frankly, leaves us out of a lot of strict constructionists definitions of marriage (since we won’t have that nice, neat nuclear family thing going). If we qualify, why shouldn’t anyone else?

50
  1. No. My relationships are no less deserving the sanctity of marriage.
  2. Nope, happily homo.
51

I’m here, I’m queer, and I wanna get married! (Well, at least I have a boyfriend now, so you never know…)

Esprix

52

1: No. No and No. Really, no. What was the question again? Oh, yeah, NO.
2: Yes

“…similar legal status…”? Why not the same legal status?

53
  1. No. Marriage is marriage is marriage.
  2. For conveniences’ sake, yes.
54

Yes I do think we need a new term. To change the legislation we have to change the definition of marriage. That freaks a lot of people out. Groups are getting wayyy to caught up in the definition of “marriage” which is causing a lot of the opposition.

I think it makes sense to change the legal definition to “civil union” (or whatever) for everyone and let all the opposing groups define marriage for themselves

55

If you think the religious right are opposed to same-sex couples using the word “marriage,” do you really think they’d give up the word altogether, for everyone, including themselves?

Not bloody likely. This isn’t about being fair - it’s obviously too important a word for them to just “give away,” either to the gay community or to do away with completely. :rolleyes:

(Sorry, I know you didn’t want this to be a debate. Couldn’t let that pass, though.)

Esprix

56

Is this allowed? This post has been running for a while now. If not, I am sorry.

  1. LOTS of people would accept ‘civil unions’ that shudder at the thought of ‘gay marriage’. They are wrong, but they vote.

  2. So if civil unions are ever made legal in your state, get ‘unioned’ or renew your vows with one. Make the legal status of both equivalent.

57

1: Do you wish it to be described by a term other than ‘marriage’ = could care less. whatever they want to call their arrangement is OK with me

2: Are you heterosexual yourself? = yeah, close enough. I go with females and not males at any rate

58
  1. No
  2. Yes

I’d be willing to tolerate another term to get gay people the equal rights that are after all what the whole argument is about. I’m opposed to “civil union” for a darn good reason – I belong to a church that’s quite willing to solemnize and bless gay marriages. There’s nothing civil-unionish about a church wedding!

59

The concensus appears to be to stick with the term “marriage”. The loony right won’t tolerate that, but it’s hardly the terminology they’re objecting to. “Civil Union” seems a little PC for my taste. “Licensed Buggers” would be more edgy, but probably a tad non-PC too. Perhaps “Conubial Partners” would be an option. A little too stuffy, perhaps. Point is, it’s really not the terminology but the phenomenon that needs to be addressed. Are we for it or against it? Hm.

  • PW
60

No, but maybe that’s what us on the “loony right” (great - I’m a combination of Sean Hannity and Bugs Bunny) would prefer. Anything else smacks of the sort of hypocrisy as when someone who’s never set foot in a church insists on getting married in one. Time for separate terminology - “spiritual” vs. “civil”. Of course, any new term will invariably get arrogated by the minority-dissenters just for the sheer “neener-neener” effect, leaving all parties back at square one, and not a bit wiser.

Still:

1: yes
2: yes

I answer like this in the reach-for-the-sky hope that the original idea of a lifelong spiritually-based commitment will regain the respect it deserves.

Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!