Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Kane]

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'?

I don't see why anyone has to view "a union of one man and one woman" homophobic. I don't don't hate gays. Why don't you call this a racial issue to?

And you can easily use those terms for anything like. Why not call your cat a soul mate or lover? Certianly if we use these words to define marriage it would not fall in the realms of only that other union but all unions.

But HEY? What's wrong with thinking marriage is between a you and your cat? Who really cares what you do and what you believe. Believe what you want. If you want a symbolic union between you and your cat marry if you like. Reality can be anything you want, so can marriage. If you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that is good. Most likelly most people will agree with but it certianly doesn't force to the state to take a stance on the issue.

If marriage becomes a term within religion, fine go ahead. It certianly doesn't force someone to agree with you on the subject. You want people to view homosexual unions equal to marriage? Start going around and telling your message. You can change anything you like in society but the government should always remain neutral.

How can anything else be more logic than this solutionl? Its only the people who strongly believe in their belief whatever it maybe that wants marriage to be their way.

 

[Phoenix44]

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.

DING!!!

 

[michaeledward]

I don't see why anyone has to view "a union of one man and one woman" homophobic. I don't don't hate gays. Why don't you call this a racial issue to?

And you can easily use those terms for anything like. Why not call your cat a soul mate or lover? Certianly if we use these words to define marriage it would not fall in the realms of only that other union but all unions.

But HEY? What's wrong with thinking marriage is between a you and your cat? Who really cares what you do and what you believe. Believe what you want. If you want a symbolic union between you and your cat marry if you like. Reality can be anything you want, so can marriage. If you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that is good. Most likelly most people will agree with but it certianly doesn't force to the state to take a stance on the issue.

If marriage becomes a term within religion, fine go ahead. It certianly doesn't force someone to agree with you on the subject. You want people to view homosexual unions equal to marriage? Start going around and telling your message. You can change anything you like in society but the government should always remain neutral.

How can anything else be more logic than this solutionl? Its only the people who strongly believe in their belief whatever it maybe that wants marriage to be their way.

I'm trying to envision a cat describing a 'soul-mate' and 'better-half' as a homo sapien. I'm trying to envision a cat standing in front of a preacher. It just ain't workin' for me.

What can be more logical, is for people to look at gay people and identify with the things that are common between them, rather than see how they are apart from each other.

Gay people love their soul-mates.
Gay people love their parents.
Gay people love their children.

Obviously, with beliefs like those, these people can't be given the same respect as 'normal' people.

 

[Floating Egg]

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.

Could you please clarify your claim concerning biological tradition? What do you mean by your use of more or less in your reference to the beginnings of marriage?

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.

Either you have good reasons for your beliefs or you do not. If you review my posts, you'll notice that I have not made any claims; instead, I have questioned yours, with the intent of discovering a cogent argument.

 

[Phoenix44]

I'm going to weigh in with Kane here.

In my opinion, and in my experience, secular "marriage" is nothing but a legal and financial contract, and not even a very good or well defined contract. (Most people don't even know what they've signed until they try to dissolve the contract!)

Now if you want to talk about love, personal commitment, and soul mates, what does that have to do with legalities and finance? Nothing.

So in my opinion, the legal "union" should be separate from the spiritual "marriage." You want a legal union? Fine. Any two consenting adults should be able to sign on the dotted line. You want a spiritual marriage? Go ahead, make your declaration before your creator.

But I have to agree that if people were assured health insurance and social security, the need for the legal union would be obviated.

By the way, please stop the conflation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition. Catchy as the phrase "Judeo-Christian" may be, a canopy, two witnesses, and the appropriate words make a Jewish marriage. Period. Christians usually require a religious leader to officiate.

 

[michaeledward]

I used to be of the mind that the gay marriage issue was about 'rights'. Gay partners should have survivor benefits, file joint income taxes and the like.

But, there is much more to 'marriage' than what people don't know they are signing ... the stuff that is difficult to define ... lovey, gushey, stuff. Aren't they entitled to that too.

It's not so much about standing before your creator ... but celebrating all the mushey stuff. Can't our gay friends share that?

 

[Phoenix44]

It's not so much about standing before your creator ... but celebrating all the mushey stuff. Can't our gay friends share that?

Absolutely.

But what's that got to do with a marriage license?

 

[bignick]

I don't don't hate gays.

It's been a bit since I've taken some high school algebra or english course...but how do double negatives work again?


Kane, how do you feel about other areas of the world where young girls are married to trees and animals. The thing michealedward pointed out, and you didn't deny, is that heterosexual people would still be able to use the term "marriage" within a religious context.

So let's get this straight, we call everything civil unions and give everyone equal rights. But then straight "unions" can still use the term marriage because there religious institution allows it. Well, there are legitimate churches out there that would recognize a gay "union" as a marriage...

So we force everyone to use the term "civil union" except for when they are "married" through a religious ceremony, which most gays would probably be able to obtain anyways........

Why not just save 37 headaches, stop trying to look progressive while trying to come up with ways to still deny gays marriage and just let them do what they want.

 

[arnisador]

It's a civil rights issue to me...and 'separate but equal' is the key phrase. We know better by now! The benefits are the practical part of it, but there' smore to it than that.

 

[ave_turuta]

I will just speak from first-hand experience. Fed up with the constant state of legal discrimination that my partner and I had to face while living in the US, we finally decided to migrate and move back to my home country (Spain) where we got married exactly one week ago. For us, marriage is the legal recognition between two consenting adults to organize their lives together and protect one another. It is a civil institution, not a religious one, and hence we have no problem in calling it "marriage." Marriage as a religious manifestations takes multiple forms (from monogamy in Christianity to poligamy in islam) and should be separate from how citizens are treated in front of the law. Today I am a happily married woman who enjoyes, for the first time in her life, the full protection of the law (from healthcare to taxes to immigration rights). Whatever you say, the sense of dignity, equality, and happiness my partner and I enjoy today cannot be taken away. I could not care less what your particular religious dogma thinks of my union, as I am a citizen of a free, democratic state that puts the well'being of its individual citizens above the interests of a dogmatized few.
Finally, to compare the union of two committed individuals to that of a person and a goat (or a cat) is intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible. My partner and I have gone through thick and thin together (putting up with many more obstacles than most hetero couples do in the course of their lifetime). Today, our union symbolizes the respect and love that we still have for one another despite so many difficulties... so please if that's your only argument, drop it. It's rather insulting.
And oh! Yes, us evil gays and lesbians "have an agenda," right? (i.e. the recognition of our rights) but bible/quran/torah thumpers and political pundits hellbent on denying us our rights don't??????????? GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

 

[ave_turuta]

To the folks who insist that they don't "hate us," yet spend so much ink and effort on trying to deny us the most essential rights to live our lives in peace and tranquility with the full protection of the law, I say: please, spare us. Your sympathy, tolerance, or "acceptance" is of no relevance to how we live our lives. It doesn't make you "cool" to be "tolerant" of homosexuality: it simply makes you a closeted homophobe. We are not to be "tolerated," but respected as individuals with equal rights. Got it?

 

[ave_turuta]

Finally, for the people who care so much about terminology: the word "salary" comes form the latin "salarium," because at a certain time in the Roman Empire salaries were paid... well, in salt. Today, we use the word "salary" with a complete different meaning. Why? Because languages evolve and adapt to different social realities, and terming our unions marriage symbolizes the legal recognition of our unions on the same standing with those of committed heterosexual couples. As simple as that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:cheers: to Ave.

Thank you.

 

[michaeledward]

I will just speak from first-hand experience. Fed up with the constant state of legal discrimination that my partner and I had to face while living in the US, we finally decided to migrate and move back to my home country (Spain) where we got married exactly one week ago. For us, marriage is the legal recognition between two consenting adults to organize their lives together and protect one another. It is a civil institution, not a religious one, and hence we have no problem in calling it "marriage." Marriage as a religious manifestations takes multiple forms (from monogamy in Christianity to poligamy in islam) and should be separate from how citizens are treated in front of the law. Today I am a happily married woman who enjoyes, for the first time in her life, the full protection of the law (from healthcare to taxes to immigration rights). Whatever you say, the sense of dignity, equality, and happiness my partner and I enjoy today cannot be taken away. I could not care less what your particular religious dogma thinks of my union, as I am a citizen of a free, democratic state that puts the well'being of its individual citizens above the interests of a dogmatized few.
Finally, to compare the union of two committed individuals to that of a person and a goat (or a cat) is intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible. My partner and I have gone through thick and thin together (putting up with many more obstacles than most hetero couples do in the course of their lifetime). Today, our union symbolizes the respect and love that we still have for one another despite so many difficulties... so please if that's your only argument, drop it. It's rather insulting.
And oh! Yes, us evil gays and lesbians "have an agenda," right? (i.e. the recognition of our rights) but bible/quran/torah thumpers and political pundits hellbent on denying us our rights don't??????????? GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

As I read this post, I thought about posting one of the cheering smiley's, or an applause smiley or something else celebratory in nature. Then I thought again.

Let me as quietly and in as dignified a manner as is possible on an internet forum wish you and your partner well, now and in the future.

Congratulations.

Mike

 

[Lisa]

Ave,

:asian:

Lisa

 

[arnisador]

Congratulations on your marriage, and thanks for sharing your thoughts here!

 

[Kane]

Hey Ave! You’re entitled to your own opinions but I do know homosexuals that are oppose to same-sex "marriage". Many of which are my friend, but I do have gay friends who are for it. Anyways you have a point in your belief but just because you do it doesn't mean the opposing view does not. Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. Who is right? Why can't we either;

1. Decide this in a centrist fashion and have two separate but equal institutions

2. Or just become completely neutral to what the word marriage means. Meaning economic unions are called civil unions for both types of unions seems the best way to remain neutral.

Heck I know gays that would not called a union between a man and a woman marriage! Obviously the word "marriage" is causing more trouble than solutions in a couple parts in the world. This is why eliminating the word from government is the best solution IMHO.

 

[michaeledward]

Kane ... it has nothing to do with the 'word' ... it has everything to do with the meaning of the word.

And despite your wishes ... the word means what the word means. And while all languages grow and evolved, right now the meaning of that word is denied to the gay population in this country.

... with Liberty and Justice for All ... well, not really!

 

[ave_turuta]

Hey Ave! You’re entitled to your own opinions but I do know homosexuals that are oppose to same-sex "marriage". Many of which are my friend, but I do have gay friends who are for it. Anyways you have a point in your belief but just because you do it doesn't mean the opposing view does not. Liberals want it there way, conservatives want it there way. Who is right? Why can't we either;

1. Decide this in a centrist fashion and have two separate but equal institutions

2. Or just become completely neutral to what the word marriage means. Meaning economic unions are called civil unions for both types of unions seems the best way to remain neutral.

Heck I know gays that would not called a union between a man and a woman marriage! Obviously the word "marriage" is causing more trouble than solutions in a couple parts in the world. This is why eliminating the word from government is the best solution IMHO.

What you do not seem to understand is that this is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue, but a human rights issue that tackles the most fundamental and essential values contained in your Constitution and those of other self-proclaimed democratic nations. If your argument is "let´s do away with marriage altogether so gays cannot participate in it and nobody gets offended," what good are you serving? For instance in Spain conservatives opposed the new law with the argument over the word "marriage." Paradoxically, from 1996 to 2004 they were 8 years in control of Parliament and they rejected on THIRTY-EIGHT different occasions the drafting of a civil unions law (not marriage, but civil unions). Which, at least to me, proves that the dispute has nothing to do with the wording, but with the opposition of some people to granting gay and lesbian citizens equal rights.

I love it when straight people say "I have a gay friend who..." I suppose you also have a Jewish friend, an African-American friend, and possibly a Latino friend conveniently stacked in the "Useful friends for needed occasions" drawer, right? Please, do not try to convince me of the merits of your argument based on what your gay "friends" have to say. I need arguments more serious than that.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I hate it when I DO have gay, black, latino friends but I cant talk about what they tell me because people always sneer at it. Are you saying that hes lying?