Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Kane]

Homosexual union is pretty a new concept. Never in thousands of years has this issue ever been brought up which is why there so little talk about it. Homosexuality in many cultures (especially Abrahamic cultures) is considered a wrong and a sin punishable by death. However, as we all know homosexuality does occur in Nature among other animals as well as humans. It may have something to do with upbringing, but it may also have to do with genes. In Brito-Indian culture today homosexuality is looked down upon strongly and yet there are more homosexuals there than here! So how can homosexuality be wrong if you are brought up with it?

But hey, believe whatever you want. Let gays do whatever they want and if you don't like them then don't be around them (although you should realize that it most likelly is not a wrong). Let gays do any sexual acts they want to each other.......oh yea now there is laws that protect this right . So then a couple or more decades ago sex between to consenting adults became legal. Great! Now homosexuals have all the rights they can ever have right?

Well according to some today no. Apparently they want their unions regarded equal as marriage. Well of course the truth is that marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. This tradition is more biological and dates back to homo erectus man (the first ape or our line to develop into monogamous and under rare circumstances polygamous but still devoted to a particular woman). But homosexuals in my eyes are going a bit too far want to change the definition of marriage.

Of course they will come at you with stuff like "Well marriage between two races was taboo" when in fact that was only something only taboo here in the states and Colonial Western Culture. And even if such things occurred, the bottom line remains marriage is between a man and a woman.

OK, so marriage is between a man and a woman. Yes, this is true. So why don't homosexuals create their own brand new traditional institutions of homosexual unions called "Garriage" or "Homunion" or something. Then homosexuals and homosexual "marriage" would answer back saying that they want it to be equal. Well you do have it equal, you get the same economic rights as straight married couples but it will just be called something different.

Then it hit. Why the heck are we debating the issue on what "marriage" is? Is it the government's job to set up institutions on out planet? NO, of course not! The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights.

So why the heck are we even calling economic unions "marriage"? Why don't we just call it civil unions? Not just homosexual unions but ANY unions between two consenting adults (including man and woman). Let's leave it up to the people to decide what marriage is, not the government. It isn't the government's job to decide what is moral and immoral outside the universal moral issues as well as issues that relate more to life and death (such as euthanasia and abortion).

Don't you think this is the best solution? Let us put any of your conservative or liberal beliefs on what "marriage" is aside. Calling economic unions; civil unions will not force people to have on opinion toward a word marriage ? It’s just an union with governmental economic benefits in reality. And perhaps once this happen maybe economic unions can be extended further than the realms of sexual relation couples in love or wanting kids if you catch what I mean by that . Perhaps really close friends or best friends can get this economic union if they like too even if they are not gay. It doesn't have to relate to heterosexuality or homosexuality. I have my opinions (I believe marriage is between a man and a woman), as do others (like people who think it is okay to change the definition of marriage).

What do you think just calling it civil unions for all type of unions? I can't think of a better solution. The only way this would come to be is if liberals, conservatives, and statists come off their high horses and realize there are many ways to look at things. I myself am guilty some times of wanting things what I want right but my view is no more right than anyone elses in reality. I'm just a homo sapien sapien like anyone else .

 

[michaeledward]

There are so many bad assumptions and incorrect facts in that thought.

Sounds to me like someone is trying to rationalize an uncomfortable emotional response. I welcome your discomfort. Please continue to examine and explore these issues. I hope you find a way to become comfortable within them.

 

[arnisador]

There are so many bad assumptions and incorrect facts in that thought.

I concur.

What do you think just calling it civil unions for all type of unions?

This idea has some merit, but not as stated (roommates getting "married" even if they aren't forming a permanent family unit).

Of course, it would be less an issue if so many benefits weren't tied to marriage--health benefits, tax benefits (and occasionally penalties), inheritance rights, etc.

 

[Floating Egg]

Well of course the truth is that marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. This tradition is more biological and dates back to homo erectus man (the first ape or our line to develop into monogamous and under rare circumstances polygamous but still devoted to a particular woman).

What evidence do you have that marriage is inherent in biologic evolution? What evidence do you have that homo erectus engaged in monogamous marriage?

And even if such things occurred, the bottom line remains marriage is between a man and a woman.

That doesn't follow. Why are you appealing to tradition? If homo erectus did indeed engage in monogamous marriage, how is that relevant today?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The concept of "seperate but equal" has been thrown out in the courts.

The idea of "seperate and Inequal" should also be tossed.

The idea of marriage as "man-woman" is a western one, and a recent one, as there were legal marriages between same genders prior to the rise of Judeo-Christian prudism.

I find little to agree with in your post, except this: "The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights."

 

[Kane]

The concept of "seperate but equal" has been thrown out in the courts.

The idea of "seperate and Inequal" should also be tossed.

The idea of marriage as "man-woman" is a western one, and a recent one, as there were legal marriages between same genders prior to the rise of Judeo-Christian prudism.

I find little to agree with in your post, except this: "The government's job is to keep the peace and not to get too much involved with people's rights."

But this solution doesn't advocate seperate but equal. The unions here are totally equal, because no one is answering what marriage is.

You still want your way it seems. You claim marriages changes over time but someone of opposing view would tell you that it doesn't matter how much marriage has been changed it must be between man and woman, which is a very a valid argument. You think in your mind you are right but the other side thinks in their mind they are right.

So who is right? Is that the government's decision to make or your own? If marriage is a religious institution or traditional institution as you say then isn't it more linked to our personal lives?

Unions in this case are equal and have the same name. Its just not forcing government to instill what marriage is?

I can't think of anything better.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But the unions aren't equal.

Those with the "marriage" title get all the rights, and privileges.

Those under the "new title" will have to fight for each one, at great cost both financially and emotionally.

Marriage is both a religious and civil institution.
The Canadian solution allows those faiths who wish to define it as "boy-girl" to do so, and not do same sex ceremonies. It also allows those who wish to wed to do so, with the same rights, responsibilities and privileges. It doesn't create a new term, a new classification, etc.

You aren't attracted to your gender, that's fine. Don't date em, don't marry em. But for those who are, why force them into an unnecessary battle?

I've presented the historical arguments elsewhere.

If I wish to get married in the Catholic Church, I must first obtain a civil marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Catholic Church places on marriage.

If I wish to marry under the Jewish faith, I must first obtain a marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Jewish faith places on marriage.

If I wish to do a simple civic ceremony, I must first obtain a marriage license.

In all these cases, there are at least 2 separate parts. I say (and many others agree) that opening the door to the first is right. The second part can take care of itself.

Here's another question: If I have a sex change operation, who can I marry?
Under UK law, I am still my birth gender, so cannot marry. Is that right?

As an aside, here is a link on what is required in 1 US state:
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/pamphlets/marriage.htm

 

[Kane]

But the unions aren't equal.

Those with the "marriage" title get all the rights, and privileges.

Those under the "new title" will have to fight for each one, at great cost both financially and emotionally.

Marriage is both a religious and civil institution.
The Canadian solution allows those faiths who wish to define it as "boy-girl" to do so, and not do same sex ceremonies. It also allows those who wish to wed to do so, with the same rights, responsibilities and privileges. It doesn't create a new term, a new classification, etc.

You aren't attracted to your gender, that's fine. Don't date em, don't marry em. But for those who are, why force them into an unnecessary battle?

I've presented the historical arguments elsewhere.

If I wish to get married in the Catholic Church, I must first obtain a civil marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Catholic Church places on marriage.

If I wish to marry under the Jewish faith, I must first obtain a marriage license. I then must comply with the separate requirements that the Jewish faith places on marriage.

If I wish to do a simple civic ceremony, I must first obtain a marriage license.

In all these cases, there are at least 2 separate parts. I say (and many others agree) that opening the door to the first is right. The second part can take care of itself.

Here's another question: If I have a sex change operation, who can I marry?
Under UK law, I am still my birth gender, so cannot marry. Is that right?

As an aside, here is a link on what is required in 1 US state:
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/pamphlets/marriage.htm

You still don't get my point. To put it simply oh Great Lord of MT , you are still trying to put your views over someone. You may not think you are but forcing the government to take a stance on marriage does force people to acknowledge gay marriage. This has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian or whatever whether gays are wrong or right.

And no, marriage hasn't always been a civil institution per se. It is a pretty new concept giving special economic rights to married couples. No matter how you look at it this is the most neutral solution.

I hope you understood what I said. I am not saying we should call homosexual unions a different name than heterosexual unions. I am saying that they should be under one name: civil union. In any case that is what it is after all: a civil union.

Do you understand what I am saying now? Why should people the government take a stance on a private matter? Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. This not a separate but equal concept, it is just the government is not forced to take a stance on marriage.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You still don't get my point. To put it simply oh Great Lord of MT , you are still trying to put your views over someone. You may not think you are but forcing the government to take a stance on marriage does force people to acknowledge gay marriage. This has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian or whatever whether gays are wrong or right.

Someone is always trying to put their views over someone. You are here. I am not forcing the Government to take a stand. It already has, based on the pushing of a small but vocal group of bigots. It needs to put that and it's own personal feelings aside and do what is right for the people.

And no, marriage hasn't always been a civil institution per se. It is a pretty new concept giving special economic rights to married couples. No matter how you look at it this is the most neutral solution.

So, what rights will these Unions have? How do name changes, hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea?

I hope you understood what I said. I am not saying we should call homosexual unions a different name than heterosexual unions. I am saying that they should be under one name: civil union. In any case that is what it is after all: a civil union.

So, if we are to rename "marriage" to "Civil Union", what is your answer to those married couples who will object to the name change?

Do you understand what I am saying now? Why should people the government take a stance on a private matter? Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. This not a separate but equal concept, it is just the government is not forced to take a stance on marriage.

The government had to step in to remove previous legislated restrictions on gender and racial biases. The government in the US now seeks to lock down definitions to further exclude 20-25% of the population. Once it does this, it opens the door to further rights abuses.

 

[arnisador]

Would the govt. grant any rights to those in a civil union? Different treatment under the tax laws, different inheritance rights, etc., as we now have for those who are married?

 

[Kane]

Someone is always trying to put their views over someone. You are here. I am not forcing the Government to take a stand. It already has, based on the pushing of a small but vocal group of bigots. It needs to put that and it's own personal feelings aside and do what is right for the people.



So, what rights will these Unions have? How do name changes, hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea?



So, if we are to rename "marriage" to "Civil Union", what is your answer to those married couples who will object to the name change?



The government had to step in to remove previous legislated restrictions on gender and racial biases. The government in the US now seeks to lock down definitions to further exclude 20-25% of the population. Once it does this, it opens the door to further rights abuses.

No I'm not. I only told my opinion, I personally against homosexual "marriage" but you are for it. All I'm saying is that if we create a civil union totally neutral then we wouldn't have to worry about anything. If gays want they can call themselves married, and no one is going to bother them.

Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots? You do realize that someone on the opposite side can easily use that against you don't you?

About your first sentance "Someone has alreadytrying to put their views on others." I assume you mean our neoconservative government? Although I share their same opinion on what marriage is I disagree that they should force what marriage is down people who disagree's throats. Get it? It is no better if a liberal took power and called homosexual unions marriage, we all know there would be people oppose to this.

I think you are still misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say "civil unions" I mean all rights straight couples have today such as the stuff you mentioned such as hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea? It is the same thing as "marriage" but just called civil unions and it will be open to any type of consenting adults. There is no seperate but equal in this solution, its just taking the word marriage out of government for people to make it out any way they place.

 

[Kane]

Would the govt. grant any rights to those in a civil union? Different treatment under the tax laws, different inheritance rights, etc., as we now have for those who are married?

No difference, exactly the same for both type of unions. It just won't be called marriage anymore for both type of unions. Its totally harmless and if liberals and conservatives just put their beliefs on what marriage is it will work. Remember this is totally equal; same name, same everything! Its just not called marriage for both unions .

 

[arnisador]

Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots?

Well, it doesn't seem to actually affect anyone but the couple involved, so opposition to it must be based on discomfort with the idea more than the effect it would have on the person who opposes it. Perhaps 'bigot' is too strong, but what would it matter to a heterosexual if a homosexual got married? Why should they care?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, it doesn't seem to actually affect anyone but the couple involved, so opposition to it must be based on discomfort with the idea more than the effect it would have on the person who opposes it. Perhaps 'bigot' is too strong, but what would it matter to a heterosexual if a homosexual got married? Why should they care?

You missed the point Arni. Remember, if we let gays marry it would "destroy the sanctity of marriage", promote bestiality, child molestation and possibly even bring down our society.

Because we know that straight marriages have a high rate of success, stability and never harm our kids.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

No I'm not. I only told my opinion, I personally against homosexual "marriage" but you are for it. All I'm saying is that if we create a civil union totally neutral then we wouldn't have to worry about anything. If gays want they can call themselves married, and no one is going to bother them.

Ok, so when you voice your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.

But when I do, it's "pushing my agenda". Ok, got it.

Why do you think anyone oppose to homosexual marriage are bigots? You do realize that someone on the opposite side can easily use that against you don't you?

a- Because the ones complaining the loudest will not in any way, shape or form be harmed by it. It would be as if I started complaining about the dangers of Country Line Dancing.

b- Well, I guess they could incorrectly define me as a 'gay', 'gay lover' or worse yet, an 'open minded progressive'.

About your first sentance "Someone has alreadytrying to put their views on others." I assume you mean our neoconservative government? Although I share their same opinion on what marriage is I disagree that they should force what marriage is down people who disagree's throats. Get it? It is no better if a liberal took power and called homosexual unions marriage, we all know there would be people oppose to this.

People were opposed to integration, womans rights, and allowing anyone not a white male over 18 to vote. All that "progressive rights" stuff had to be pushed through, against the publics wish, for the public good.

I think you are still misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say "civil unions" I mean all rights straight couples have today such as the stuff you mentioned such as hospital visitation, child custody, inheritance, living wills, taxation, etc fit into your idea? It is the same thing as "marriage" but just called civil unions and it will be open to any type of consenting adults. There is no seperate but equal in this solution, its just taking the word marriage out of government for people to make it out any way they place.

Then why change the name if it is the same?

 

[Kane]

Ok, so when you voice your opinion, it is just that, an opinion.

But when I do, it's "pushing my agenda". Ok, got it.



a- Because the ones complaining the loudest will not in any way, shape or form be harmed by it. It would be as if I started complaining about the dangers of Country Line Dancing.

b- Well, I guess they could incorrectly define me as a 'gay', 'gay lover' or worse yet, an 'open minded progressive'.



People were opposed to integration, womans rights, and allowing anyone not a white male over 18 to vote. All that "progressive rights" stuff had to be pushed through, against the publics wish, for the public good.



Then why change the name if it is the same?

First of all you are getting way to passionate here . Calm down, take a couple drink .

Secondly I'm not pushing my agenda. If I was I would be saying that gay marriages should be banned by the constitution. Again you want it your way. Liberals may think they are nothing like conservatives and that they are open-minded "progressives". That whole premise that they assume about themselves is wrong because they think in their mind they are doing things right. But a conservative would have the same opinion here in other issues. What makes you any more "progressive" than a conservative? Being for a strong economic government-weak social government doesn't make you "progressive" or open-minded.

I voiced my opinion on same-sex marriage; I am opposed to the word marriage used on same-sex unions because it is not marriage. That's my opinion, but my opinion is no more valid than yours, right? Well then a truly neutral solution is the one I am advocating here. I don't know why it is so hard to see it bud . Oh glorious president of MT, do you get it now?:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think my accurate title would be "Dictator for life, grand poobah of the bahpoos, and all around hoopy frood who knows where his towel is.".


Seriously though, as I asked "Then why change the name if it is the same?"

 

[Floating Egg]

Kane,

You didn't answer my previous questions.

 

[michaeledward]

The word 'marriage' has all sorts of wonderful connotations to it, that are not included in the homophobic definition of "a union of one man and one woman".

The word 'marriage' means more than a union ... here are a few words that are wrapped up within the term 'marriage' ...

... soul-mate
... lover
... partner
... better-half
... friend

... but these words are not inclusive of the term 'civil union'.

Hell, TIME and WARNER formed a civil union, then AOL and TIME-WARNER formed a civil union.

Marriage is so much more than a 'union'.

Kane is trying slight of hand .... hey, let's call all legal associations a civil union; so the state doesn't sanction marriage. What he is not saying, but I am inferring, is that 'marriage' would still be available as a term within a religion; kind-a like a secret handshake.

The correct question is .... why should gay couple be denied all of the wonderful connotations within the word 'marriage'?

Why can't our gay friends have 'soul-mates', 'lovers', and 'better-halfs'?

 

[Kane]

What evidence do you have that marriage is inherent in biologic evolution? What evidence do you have that homo erectus engaged in monogamous marriage?



That doesn't follow. Why are you appealing to tradition? If homo erectus did indeed engage in monogamous marriage, how is that relevant today?

[FONT=&quot]
Hey floated egg sorry I didn't address your post earlier.

I am not saying marriage is a biological evolution; it’s more or less a biological tradition. Homo erectus didn't engage in the actual marriage ceremony, but that is beside the point. These are more or less the beginnings of marriage.

What is my point of this particular tradition? I feel particular strong about the tradition......well you know how people feel about tradition . I'm not saying that my beliefs are any more valid than your own, so that is why the solution should work out the best. [/FONT]