It isn't about making the minority feel uncomfortable or comfortable, it's about applying the laws equally. The uncomfortable part comes in because some will be made to feel uncomfortable by that equal application. But if marriage is only for religious ceremonies, then it should be ok for homosexuals who are married in a religious ceremony to called married right?
Again, law is civil union gets the tax breaks. Though they may need to step up the civil union status because I believe as it is now there is nowhere near the commitment involved of a marriage. Govt honors private religious ceremonies as civil unions. Seems pretty simple to me.
They were married by their church then I don't see why not. I am not the church commissioner. I can't help what another church does.
How do you do this without making the "losing side" feel uncomfortable?? Though I guess if you knew the answer to that you would be on your way to being president.... Tough questions!
It is a good question, and I think I'm not being clear enough. Whether someone is or isn't uncomfortable shouldn't enter in to it at all. What should enter into it is if the law is being applied equally. Theoretically that is true whether or not they are civil unions or marriages. But on that note wouldn't relgious opponents to same sex marriage feel cheated that the govt. no longer recognized them as married, and only as a civil union? In a non-theoretical point, nobody was raising a stink about the govt. calling it marriage and not civil unions until the issue of same sex marriage was brought up. So it seems like it's still a reaction to homosexuals. Also it is easier to allow homosexual couples the same rights rather than strip all the rights of that exist now for everyone, or change them all to make them civil union rights. I just can't imagine a heterosexual couple who entered into a union as a marriage to have it changed to a civil union no matter what their stance was on same sex marriage.
This is what I have been saying for a long time now. When a marriage ceremony is performed, two separate and distinct unions are created. The first in in the eyes of the church. If a church does not want to recognize gay marriage, fine. If they do, fine. It is up to each individual church and the beliefs of their faithful. The second union is the union at law. This is what protects the rights of the individuals as to property, etc. This union should not discriminate. It should be available to all. This issue would not be a debate were it not for the religious importance of the word marriage to many people. If the state recognized a civil union for heterosexuals rather than a marriage, many people would not oppose the same things being available to homosexuals. The fact that a lot of this debate is based solely on nomenclature is silly.
Marriage is a business contract and a government function, always has been. It was the means by which a woman's financial dependency was transferred from a father to a husband: for the 100,000 years or so that women couldn't get most jobs or even inherit their father's property, and were socially obligated to have children instead. When most commercial ventures were family owned, when most governments were hereditary monarchies or oligarchies, marriages were the means by which businesses were merged and lines of succession were formed. It was originally officiated and regulated by organized religion because they were the bureaucratic and judicial arm of pre-republican governments, which were basically just military dictatorships.
very good points. its funny to see people argue about marraige when fewer and fewer women are looking to marry because they don't have to.
Depends whose marriage you're talking about! I find that both sides of this disagreement seek to define marriage for everyone else. My view on it is that the Church needs to spend more time correcting the fact that its members' divorce rate mirrors the rest of the culture....as opposed to pointing fingers outside of the Church. If you think you have a "better way" then live it and show everyone....but pointing fingers ain't gonna do it.
I'm confused. How are gays, by seeking equal treatment, trying to define anything for anyone but themselves?
I also don't understand why any church or anyone else representing a church has any cause for concern. No one is advocating for forcing a religious institution to perform any ceremony they don't want to. Gays and their advocates are only seeking equal treatment (and freedom from discrimination, whether in marriage, military service, housing, employment, etc.) from the government.
Ok, so to all of you gay marriage opponents: What if we completely separate marriage from civil unions? So, everyone who wants to enter into a civil union can do so at their local courthouse and it can be recognized by the government. Gay couples and straight couples will have the exact same rights. Then, straight religious people can have marriage ceremonies with ministers, yada yada. Likewise, gay religious people can have marriage ceremonies with ministers (there are tons of churches that happily marry gay people). Nonreligious gays and straights can get married if they wish. Those straight couples that have weddings will call themselves married. The gay people that have weddings will call themselves married. It's just technically not the term used by the government, or on government documents, for ANYONE. Maybe some straight & gay secularists or atheists choose not to engage in "marriage," just "civil unions." They might just refer to their union as "marriage" just because it's the traditional name for it. But the bottom line being, homosexuals who choose to get married by churches that find it ok to perform these marriages get to be married. Would people have problems with that? And they will call themselves a married couple and be two happy husbands or two happy wives. Just a scenario I'm curious about.
Would allowing gays to marry set an example to children that being homosexual is OK? Would that run counter to many religious beliefs, Batman?
That's besides the point. What about non-religious heterosexuals? If the law only recognizes civil unions and marriages are purely religious, then a heterosexual atheist couple can't be married?
It's a freaking marriage. It lets people say "we're married". If there's no difference, why would you care if it's a civil union or marriage?
Yes it would...it would be a step toward tolerance. Then maybe we'll have less taunting, bullying, murders, and suicides among kids and teens based on the discriminatory "examples" their parents set.
