[i]Disclaimer[/i]: Before I go on, I'm going to be talking about the U.S. for the most part here when I cite any statistics or make any generalizations about the public, for the sake of the argument.
Many of you guys know the ongoing debates over something we've all heard about: gay marriage. Of course, I could go on and on about the specifics of the debate, the few sides of the debate usually fizzle down to:
[u]a. It should be legal because homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else in the country.[/u]
[u]b. It should be illegal because homosexuals have a disease, possessed by the devil, etc.[/u]
[u]c. It should be illegal because marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman.[/u]
[u]d. It should be illegal because marriage is a religious institution, but they should be able to have a civil union that has the same rights as heterosexual couples[/u]
I could go on and on about the first three, but I'd like to talk about the people who choose d. These people are usually those that are for the same treatment of homosexuals, but they're stricken only by the term that is used: gay [i]marriage[/i]. The term "marriage" traditionally has something of a religious connotation to it, meaning the joining of two people under a religious doctrine (think of the place most people get married: a church, a synagogue, etc). Of course, the term marriage didn't always have this meaning, as some believe it was used before organized religion was invented (usually as a way to keep a couple together to help raise their offspring and from allowing the man to sleep around and impregnating other women). Regardless, in today's day and age, marriage is seen as less of a secular thing and more of a spiritual and religious thing.
This takes us back to the "d" people. These "d" people are usually somewhat secular, in regards to the government, but they are moderately spiritual or religious in some way. By this, I mean they identify as a follower of a religious doctrine, like Christianity, but they do NOT apply all parts of the Bible to their political ideology. These people make up a good majority of people here in the United States.
How does this factor into why they answered "d" instead of "a" or "c"? Morally, they [i]do[/i] want equal rights for homosexuals, and will vote for candidates that generally support gay rights. However, when it comes to marriage, they say no. Why's that? Like I said before, marriage is considered more a [i]religious[/i] institution, not a [i]government[/i] institution, so people will believe that homosexuals will break or otherwise disrespect their religious doctrine by getting married. For this reason, they believe it fine to give homosexuals an [i]equal, but separate,[/i] institution called a [i]civil union[/i]. That will give them all of their legal rights, but won't break the teachings of the Church.
Now, this might sound all fine and dandy, but homosexuals resent this as well for good reason. Giving them the right to a civil union would make their rights [i]more[/i] equal, but not [i]entirely[/i] equal. They don't want their love and unity to be different than that of a heterosexual couple. It's essentially like the idea of segregation back in the first half of the twentieth century. Let me be clear here, the [i]idea[/i] of segregation, not what actually happened, since what happened was much worse than what it was supposed to be on paper. The whole idea of segregation was to give white and colored people [i]equal, but separate[/i] places to eat, go to the restroom, etc. Civil unions would be the same way, they would supposedly have all the same rights as married couples, but simply be thrown into a different category. Homosexuals do not want to be separate from heterosexual couples, they want to be the same.
My question is, how do you fix it? If my proposal could work, it might actually be quite simple: [b]get rid of the term [i]marriage[/i] in all U.S. law, and replace each use with [i]civil union[/i]. Period. No more marriages, only civil unions.[/b]
Let me explain why in itemized list:
[b]-- [u] Wouldn't doing that infringe married peoples' rights?[/b][/u]
The thing is, it [i]wouldn't[/i] affect anyone's rights. See, according to many pro-civil union activists, the civil unions has the same rights and privileges as a married couple. All that is going on here is renaming the institution.
[b]-- [u]How will something as simple as [i]renaming[/i] marriage make gay marriage more acceptable?[/b][/u]
Remember, many people see marriage as a religious institution. Because of this, they see gay marriage and morally apprehensive, as it goes against their doctrine. However, by renaming marriage on a government level, it's no longer an issue of gay [i]marriage[/i], but instead gay [i]civil unions[/i]. Without any ties to religion, they would be much more happy to vote in the affirmative since the issue no longer is tied into a religious tier.
[b]-- [u]But some gay couples are against the idea of civil unions![/b][/u]
True, but only because they're segregated from those who are considered married under most proposed civil union legislation. This way, the term "civil union" would be seen as uniform through both the heterosexual and the homosexual community, and they would be much, much more for it because of that.
[b]-- [u]But wouldn't heterosexual couples and religious people be in an [i]out roar[/i] over the name change? Wouldn't they see it as an attack on the religious?[/b][/u]
That is a very good point; chances are something like that very well [i]would[/i] happen. However, this out roar could be curbed if they make sure to specify that this is only the [i]renaming[/i] of the [i]government[/i] definition. That is important for two big reasons. First, this means that civil unions will work in [i]the exact same way[/i] as marriages, so couples won't need to renew their licenses and benefits won't be cut off because of the redefinition. Secondly, this does not change the [i]religious[/i] definition of marriage. This way, those who are religious will realize their marriages are only seen as civil unions to the government but NOT to the eye's of God, etc. So, your typical Christian couple can get a license, go through your typical marriage ceremony at a church, and they can be considered married, but to the government they'll be seen as part of a [i]civil union[/i]. No "discrimination" against the religious, gays get completely equal treatment on the governmental level, everyone wins.
What are your thoughts on this? Could it work? Will it not? Or is it such a terrible plan that I should go jump off a bridge forever? Let's debate!
[highlight]TL;DR: The term "marriage" should no longer be used in legislation [i]for all marriages, heterosexual and homosexual,[/i] as it has religious connotations, which causes conflicts of interest (i.e. gay marriage, which is against many religious doctrines). It should be instead changed to "civil union," which is much more secular and might allow for the establishment of equal "marriage" rights to be established easier without cultural conflicts.[/highlight]
That whole theory just smacks of the same separate but equal hogwash that was put forward during segregation.
They said many of the same things then too, that black students would enjoy all the same educational benefits as white students, that they were to be separated but of equal quality, and I think we all know that wasn't the case. If you made civil unions legal across the country, you would have to be [I]absolutely[/I] certain that they received all the same rights as married couples in all 50 states and that no one state could arbitrarily change that, nor could the federal government without also changing the rights of married couples simultaneously. In the long run, it would be swifter, simpler, and more equitable to allow homosexual couples into the institution of marriage.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38013536]That whole theory just smacks of the same separate but equal hogwash that was put forward during segregation.
They said many of the same things then too, that black students would enjoy all the same educational benefits as white students, that they were to be separated but of equal quality, and I think we all know that wasn't the case. If you made civil unions legal across the country, you would have to be [I]absolutely[/I] certain that they received all the same rights as married couples in all 50 states and that no one state could arbitrarily change that, nor could the federal government without also changing the rights of married couples simultaneously. In the long run, it would be swifter, simpler, and more equitable to allow homosexual couples into the institution of marriage.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling I didn't make this clear enough in the article.
I want to get rid of any use of marriage in U.S. law, and replace any such instance of such with civil union [b][u]for ALL types of marriages[/u][/b]. Therefore, your typical [i]heterosexual[/i] marriage would be considered a civil union, as well as your typical homosexual marriage. All I'm trying to do is get rid of the use of marriage because of its religious connotations. I actually made that point, too, that the idea of heterosexuals having marriage and homosexuals having civil unions was like racial segregation, so I'm proposing we just use civil union since it's much more secular, in a way, than marriage.
This is the aforementioned argument, by the way:
[quote]Now, this might sound all fine and dandy, but homosexuals resent [civil unions] as well for good reason. Giving them the right to a civil union would make their rights more equal, but not entirely equal. They don't want their love and unity to be different than that of a heterosexual couple. It's essentially like the idea of segregation back in the first half of the twentieth century. Let me be clear here, the [i]idea[/i] of segregation, not what actually happened, since what happened was much worse than what it was supposed to be on paper. The whole idea of segregation was to give white and colored people equal, but separate places to eat, go to the restroom, etc. Civil unions would be the same way, they would supposedly have all the same rights as married couples, but simply be thrown into a different category. Homosexuals do not want to be separate from heterosexual couples, they want to be the same.[/quote]
Hopefully that clears up my argument a bit more. As a bisexual, the last thing I'd want to do with is segregate my own relationship from that of a heterosexual one. Although, to be completely fair, I think my title might be a bit misleading, but I can't really change that now.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;38013616]I have a feeling I didn't make this clear enough in the article.
I want to get rid of any use of marriage in U.S. law, and replace any such instance of such with civil union [b][u]for ALL types of marriages[/u][/b]. Therefore, your typical [i]heterosexual[/i] marriage would be considered a civil union, as well as your typical homosexual marriage. All I'm trying to do is get rid of the use of marriage because of its religious connotations. I actually made that point, too, that the idea of heterosexuals having marriage and homosexuals having civil unions was like racial segregation, so I'm proposing we just use civil union since it's much more secular, in a way, than marriage.[/QUOTE]
Well then yes, if you could accomplish that then it would be equal for all, but think of the veritable legwork within government that would have to be undertaken to accomplish that, compared to simply letting homosexuals also get married.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38013779]Well then yes, if you could accomplish that then it would be equal for all, but think of the veritable legwork within government that would have to be undertaken to accomplish that, compared to simply letting homosexuals also get married.[/QUOTE]
I know, but it might be worth it; sometimes putting more time into something can help keep it secure. After all, even after gay marriage is passed in a a state, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will always agree with it thereafter, for some of the reasons in my argument. However, by using just "civil union" in all cases, it could lower the chances of any legislation supports gay unions being repealed on moral grounds.
I think everyone should get a civil union from the government when they get together. If you feel the need to make it a marriage for religious reasons than you can go to a church and get married. Although in the governments eyes no one is married, everyone is civil union-ed. That way everyone can get the benefits of "marriage" and it will not piss off the religious community.
I personally don't believe Marriage should be tied into the government system whatsoever.
If, like so many claim, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, why does it seem more like it's between a man, a woman, and the government?
I don't think people should have any incentives or penalties for being married beyond their love for the person they wish to marry.
I believe government incentivized marriage, as well as incentivized divorce among other groups (mostly legal firms), is the leading cause of unhappy relationships in the long run. If people want to defend marriage and it's values, they should defend what it stands for, not what benefits it gets them.
I'm completely for the separation of marriage and state, I believe the whole "Anti-gay marriage" issue is a giant distraction among more important issues, when the real problem is that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage to that degree anyways.
If we replaced "marriage" with "civil unions" and kept all the benefits and privileges the same in the new civil unions are they are in current marriages, then both homosexual and heterosexual marriages would certainly be equal. I think this is what you're suggesting.
I also think this would be faster than slugging through both the courts and political opposition by trying to legalize gay marriage conventionally.
Christians can go to church to get their 5th Sacrament. The government should not officially recognize it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.