Although this topic is posted in 2011, I do like to reply. Same sex couples should be allowed to marry. Recently, it has been legalized in all 50 states. There's nothing wrong with love, yet opponents tend to bring their religious ideals, disgust, or irrelevance of the idea of people marrying objects, animals, and so on. People who are disgusted shouldn't even be bothered, since it's none of their business. The irrelevance is a terrible argument, and people shouldn't force their religious beliefs on others. Homosexual people are still considered people, they shouldn't be treated anything less.

Accidentally insulting while trying not to be.

I didn't mean to insult at all, I just hate it when people treat anyone less of a human being just because of their sexual orientation. Maybe I worded it wrong, but I back them up all the way.

Interestingly enough, when I heard that same sex marriage was legalized by the supreme court, I thought that it was ridiculous. There's absolutely no way that the government can tell me who I can and can't marry in a church. It's not up to the government to decide. It's up to each religious organization.

Then I talked to someone who actually read the ruling and they explicitly said that the government can't tell churches who they can and can't marry.

I hate that the term "marriage" has become analogous to a civil union. That being said, what do people think of the government actually legalizing gay marriage (I'm 100% opposed) rather than only honoring the legal and financial side of the marriage (civil union).

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 13 2015, 4:50 pm by rockz.

I agree 100% with everything said above Never mind
Wouldn't forcing churches to marry be against the idea of separation of church and state? irrelevant

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 19 2015, 12:10 am by Generalpie.

I'm glad they got equal legal rights by any means, compared to that the naming's trivial - if expanding 'marriage' was the cleanest/quickest way to achieve this I'm behind it. That said, I dislike the naming, though when something like this happens I imagine the English meaning changes - after which there's little reason to be upset.

Relevant?: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/12/26/256586055/when-the-supreme-court-decided-tomatoes-were-vegetables

What is in "gay marriage" that is not in "civil union"?

100%? Come on, man, leave yourself some margin of error. If you were around in the 1960's, you could have perhaps prevented interracial marriage from using the "M" word as well. I think your viewpoint, while seemingly reasonable on the surface, is an old-fashioned one: it's excellent that "marriage" is becoming synonymous with "civil union". Here's why:

1) If you're saying the state shouldn't recognize the term "marriage" because it's strictly a religious word: it's not, at least not since the entirety of the United States' history. "Marriage" is and always has been the legal term, despite the word's religious root.
2) English is an evolving language; new words and phrases are created out of natural necessity, and others are deprecated as they fall to obscurity. The term "civil union" doesn't need to exist anymore, as its purpose to serve as a way to express bigotry is declining in social acceptance. Seriously, go read up the wiki article: the only reason the term exists is because societies weren't ready to accept same-sex couples as marriage-worthy.
3) "Separate but equal" is a tried and failed methodology. Trying to distinguish between "marriage" and "civilly united" is only trying to fuel the fight against gay marriage in the first place, and will channel an attitude of "Oh, you're not really married." It's just another way people can attempt to look down on others.

So yes, I am in support of legalizing gay marriage, and I am opposed to using the term "civil union" to try and perpetuate the long-standing animosity toward homosexuals. This has nothing to do with the state telling the church what to do, of course: churches that want to continue to discriminate against gay couples should be free to do so, on the same grounds that they could discriminate against interracial couples. The state, however, should have no concern regarding the religion, race, sex, etc. of two married people.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 13 2015, 8:43 pm by Roy.

Just to close a little hole...


There's no reason it would have to be separate but equal, all legal partnerships could be called one thing (such as civil unions). However this is not quick nor clean, there are laws, tax codes, ordinances and so fourth at several levels of government as well as rules at other institutions that would require changes; the shear effort that would be required is enough to warrant changing (or solidifying/fleshing-out/enforcing (depending on your view)) the legal definitions of a few words.

We already use "marriage" for this purpose.

Are you saying the church should be allowed to change the law to use different terminology because they suddenly now disagree with it? I don't think the church should be dictating law.

No not particularly, but it is a suggestion that avoids the separate but equal problem; though as described in my post, is untenable.

Ahhh, 'Murica, the land of the knee-jerk reaction of the uniformed.

Personally I think governments should recognise Civil Unions only. What society at large chooses to call these legal arrangements (eg, marriage) shouldn't really have any impact on legislation or the government.

As for having to change all existing laws - that is ultimately true, however it would be possible to pass laws that said "all existing laws that mention Marriage are now held to be equally valid for Civil Union".

Well, first, "gay" isn't in civil union, but aside from that marriage is holy matrimony and simply means that two or more people are joined in a religious cerimony, usually christian, under God, etc...

A civil union allows for two people (or more, but that's unlikely to be legalized) to have tax breaks and other benefits. Normally getting married implies getting a civil union, but they are not identical terms.

Sad but true. I tend to be very open to opposing ideas, but we are all susceptible to knee jerk reactions.

I'm pretty stalwart about this point. Reads rest of response.

You almost convinced me, but I stand by my convictions here.

So I'm 100% opposed to the government passing a law that legalizes gay marriages which would require a religious marriage in any religious institution. I'm 100% for gay marriage on a per community (local or national). I'm a member at an ELCA church, and their official statement is:
Which isn't great, but essentially if they were to fully support gay marriage, we'd have yet another schism, and since many churches aren't 100% on this issue, the current non-solution seems to be the best one. They'll decide next year on what to do. Hopefully by then all the crazies will have left their churches and gone to a more welcoming Missouri Synod or some other church that still actively persecutes women and homosexuals.

You see Civil Unions as damaging, but I see them as a necessary distance from the more religious "marriage". None of my cousins are married, and those that are with significant others are likely never going to get married in the first place, partially due to an aggressive Atheist stance. They shouldn't be required to get married to have benefits, hence a civil union. Now, I suppose this is actually fueling the "fight" from the opposite side, but in their case it has nothing to do with gay marriage but with an anti-religious sentiment. They really don't want to be really married and they don't want to be discriminated against for their beliefs. I believe in a fundamental separation between church and state, and traditional marriage has always blurred the two. If you want to do it right, then we get rid of "Marriage" and call it Civil Union vs Holy Matrimony or something, but we're arguing semantics.

If you are a homosexual in a church or religion that expressly forbids homosexual marriage but you want to have your ceremony at that church, then you need to leave that church, not force your beliefs down their (admittedly bigoted) throats. I believe that intolerance can go both ways and we need to protect people who are exercising their rights within limits. I feel for the christian bakers and religious business owners that put their beliefs above their business (which is kind of hypocritical to begin with), but it really sucks to be on the receiving end of the stick, much like women, blacks, and the LGBT community are, and there's not much I or anyone else can do to ease their suffering other than by being nice to them whenever possible.

And legislation has no need to use a made-up term when one that is already in use works sufficiently. Society can call state-recognized marriage a civil union if they want. For the purposes of this topic, it is a non-issue.

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees with you on this statement. This fight has never been about forcing churches to do anything, but for the state to recognize marriage agnostically.

I think that's a great excuse for people that don't want to commit to marriage but don't want to actually say it. There's nothing holy about filing some paperwork, and you're kidding yourself if you believe only religious people get married.

It would be damaging to call marriage by another name. Pedants would insist gays only propose by saying "Will you join me into a civil union" or "Will you civilly unite me" when really you just want to profess your damn love to your significant other. But straight proposals won't matter, because churches would definitely recognize that.

We need to move away from the idea that "marriage" is a word that belongs to the church. If they want to start saying "Holy Matrimony" instead, that's fine. We can call the one the state goes by as "Secular Matrimony" or "Legal Matrimony". These terms are wordy, of course, which is why we use the simpler word "marriage". Like you said, it's just semantics in the end, so let's not propagate the issue by calling it something else in law, especially something that was invented for the sole purpose of distinguishing homosexual marriage (which many countries today grant fewer benefits toward than "regular" marriage).

Though I agree with the libertarian view that you are free to exercise your beliefs in theory, it would mean things like the Civil Rights Movement would have been unnecessary. Religion should be free, but any hate or damage a particular church wants to force onto society should be treated in the same manner as any other entity. Hateful groups have done it under the guise of religion against interracial marriage, are currently doing it under the guise of religion against same-sex marriage, and will likely use the guise of religion against future social issues. Meanwhile, when society moves forward, so will the church, and those trying to use religion to spout hate will be recognized and ostracized by the group they pretend to represent.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 14 2015, 3:41 pm by Roy. Reason: Fixing quote

EDIT: Maybe I should've read all the replies, in order, before posting. xD I'm basically just repeating everything already said.

Basically, yes, the government should not be able to tell churches/whatever who they can/can't marry (in either legal or religious sense), but a church/whatever should also not be able to tell the government or other churches/whatever who they can/can't marry (in either legal or religious sense).



Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 14 2015, 5:40 pm by FaRTy1billion.

Actually I don't see why people are so easily accepting of this concept of separation of religion and state in the direction of state affecting religion. For example, in the case of a child abuse complaint, wherein the act of abuse identified is a part of the defendants' religion (by which I mean commonplace practice), I think the state is obligated to help the child suffering the abuse. Under this, religious parents would be required to provide blood transfusions to their children even if it is against their religion, or refuse to perform or permit the performance of female genital mutilation (and make genital mutilation surely).

And of course, we will eventually come to the problem that separation of church and state will pretty much always be a farce.

For example, atheists on France and France in general has had many internal conflicts over same sex marriage because of the failure to recognize that their imperfect country and culture has been heavily influenced by religion (forgot if it was Catholicism or something else), resulting in really bizarre situations of struggle against same sex marriage rights. This is all in spite of French secularism.

Likewise applies to USA and the history of marriage as an originally social-economic-political tool for royalty that was given credence under religion and only recently was widely popularized for anyone not royalty.

IMO it's a farce and a failure of thorough analysis to use "separation" principle either for or against giving all peoples the right to marry. It really needs to be looked at as "whether a society and the people on it are willing to provide all its members and their peers the same rights that most people enjoy". Just so you can't try to squirm out of the realization that it is in fact completely a matter of discrimination.

Also, there is plenty of other social work that needs to be done.

It is a bi-directional relationship, but you're misinterpreting the First Amendment right to free exercise. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

By this ruling alone it's clear why the State can allow same-sex marriages while respecting the Church's right to forbid them. This is the fundamental idea behind Separation of Church and State.

It is a matter of discrimination, you're right; however, distinguishing marriage as recognized by the State versus the Church is essential, lest we forgo our Constitution.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 15 2015, 2:04 am by Roy.

Yeah, we (or rather, the US) should have just stuck with "colored", because it was a perfectly accurate term and society can call coloreds whatever they want.

Yeah, thank god no-one says "queer" any more, because it was such a dangerous and destructive word, only used to denigrate homosexuals (and 'gay' just means happy, btw).

Those are excellent points, and I'm glad you agree with me that we shouldn't use "civil union": the law should not condone the use of these negative and hateful terms.

The law *did* use colored, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws that said "queer" as well.

Thankfully society is more enlightened and has moved on, away from that out-moded language. Just as we should move away from the out-moded term Marriage. As I've illustrated, the argument that we already have a word in law for the union doesn't really hold any weight, because we already had the perfectly serviceable term "colored" that was replaced. The word marriage is tarnished by the fact that it used to only be for people of the same race, and then eventually it was only for people of the opposite sex; I think we should get rid of all of this historical baggage and use a new term that is neutral, all-inclusive and reflects the separation of church and state.

I can't help but think, given your specific objection to it, that actually you're somehow offended by the suggestion, rather than just finding it to be a waste of time.