So I've been on another forum, adulterer that I am, re-reading the old gay-marriage issue, when it occurred to me that both sides of the argument may be looking at the whole thing in the wrong way.

It's a problem of definition, specifically the word "marriage". When your religious fundamentalist talks about marriage, he's talking about a covenant with God, performed by the church. And according to most churches, that's between a man and a woman. Fine, churches can pretty much do whatever they want, I don't really care.

But when liberals/gays talk about marriage in the context of this debate, what they're talking about is a state-sanctioned union, a legal recognition of their relationship with the accompanying conveniences - tax breaks and stuff.

The clash arises when they talk about them as if they're the same thing. The fundamentalist says homosexuality is a sin and marriage is between a man and a woman (most likely true in their religion). The liberal or homosexual says that the state has no right to give preferential status to heterosexual couples (also true). These views are not mutually exclusive.

My answer, then, is to rename state marriages. Call them civil unions or whatever. Make "marriage" a private ceremony with no legal side to it at all.

Thoughts?

Ah, so you've been checking out the NitwitIdeologue forums again. I've been thinking this for pretty much two years now, but I've never had the audacity to actually voice this opinion. Stupid me for not getting the credit for it.

I think it should probably be called a 'civil marriage', rather than a 'civil union', so that you don't get people who got married outside a church/place of worship complaining about having their institution taken away from them.

I'm confused. Maybe I'm just blinded by some overwhelming naivety, but I thought that this solution was long since suggested and eventually failed. I think that there are a lot of people who are okay with a "civil union" but that there are still many people who think they have the right to a marriage, title and all.

There are a lot of people who have already said they'd vote for civil unions, but not for a marriage, so I don't think this solution is a new one.

I've never been clear on this, but i don't think the proposed "civil unions" had all the legal aspects marriage did, it wasn't just marriage with a new name. A half-measure, essentially.

Please correct me if I am wrong - but even with a civil union a gay couple does not get the same rights as a straight one does.

As I understand it (I have a close family member who is gay) there is no way that he can ensure that his partner is provided for if he dies. His partner is NOT entitiled to their home, any pension that he had outstanding or anything else.

I think that's the thing - isn't it? Not so much the marriage side of it but the fact that you are completely overlooked when it comes to financies and it's just occured to me - medical care.

Whereas a wife can make decisions on her husbands care - your gay partner/lover, whatever cannot?

I think Snugs is right. Civil unions exist, but do not give couples the same rights (yet) as those who are married. The campaign for gay marriage really should be named 'the campaign for equalising the rights awarded through a civil union with those awarded by an officially sactioned marriage'. For some reason they didn't think that was catchy enough...

My answer, then, is to rename state marriages. Call them civil unions or whatever. Make "marriage" a private ceremony with no legal side to it at all.

Thoughts?

[/quote]

Id kinda have to disagree with that, sorry. theoretically its not a bad idea, but i dont think that marriage is just about all the legal benifits, although those are important. i mean isnt marriage supposed to be a special thing? maybe im being naive but it seems like it takes all the romance out of it.

I don't think gay couples need to be married for the romance - it's already there. They just want the rights.

You can still have both, you can still have your ceremony with the church and the dress and the flowers and whatnot. Functionally, for heterosexual couples, almost nothing would change.

That sounds like a good idea. But when all those people in S.F. got married, some people refused to acknowledge their marriage. Was that because they were married religiously, and they just felt it should have not been done religiously? If so, then wouldn't they have recognized the marriage by just giving them their rights?

The way I see it, I wish that idea could work, but I have my doubts on whether it will...

actually... there are 2 parts to a marrage getting the lisence that says your married... and having a cerimony.... i belive that marrage is a agreement betweent the two people to be true to each other and making a real commitment... somthing you can do without a cerimony... but with a lisence... i dont know... i think im jsut rambling...

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Ce...tentDisplay.cfm

The problem in the US is the fact that State A will not recognize State B legal civil union. That means if my partner and me are driving through State A and have an accident, all bets are off. I have no ability to make a decision regarding her or our children (if I had them). I think the best resolution in the US would be a federal “contract” that allows all the rights and privileges as marriage. The chance of that happening is zero to one. The best protection for gays and lesbians at this moment is to document all wishes through a lawyer and with living wills.

Honestly the issue of marriage is not that important to me. I feel that a marriage is simply a moment in time when you pledge to spend your life with someone. That can be anywhere and anyplace. I don’t need a government approval for that. But due to the government restrictions on healthcare, taxes, property, etc.. it is necessary to have some sort of control or contract that allows you those protections. The association with marriage is unnecessary and foolish in such a politically charged time. I really think that gay activist chose the wrong time to push this issue. They have actually made it harder for us to get Bush out of office.

I'm with commie on this one.

Religious marrage should be a totally seperate thing from a civil marrage and in order to get the tax breaks and be recognised as a couple by law with all the rights and responsibilities that entais you need to have a civil marrage.

Then you can dress it up with whatever religion you choose, as fits you, and if your religion doesn't 'allow' gay marrage its a problem with the religion not with the law of the land.

Problem solved, jobs a good en.

Sorry to be such a dope but can gay people get married in the UK? I have no idea

You can be blessed, but I'm pretty sure that you can't get the legal certificate of marriage (ie. signing the register).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong please!

Since marrage is both about love and procreation (according to my religion), it cannot be given to gays by the church. Last time I checked, church and state were supposed to be seperated. Let marrage be issued by the church in the way they want to, but both gay and church bonds need to be considered partnerships by the state. The state needs to give equal rights to both. If you really want to protect the sanctity of marrage, then keep it away from the state.

Sjbbandgeek, I think we have the same view from different sides.

If we call the religious joining of people 'Marrage' then I'd say each religion can set the rules as they see fit. After all I've never heard of a Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, etc.. gay marrage only christaianty out of the major world faiths seems to be more tolerant and under a certain degree of pressure from gay groups to permit marrage.

If a religious marrage had no legal implications at all and if you were religiously married in a church and then had to go and get a civil marrage/partnership as well would that be considered fair do you think? I do.
It means that the religious bit only means something if you are religious and if your religion has a problem with your sexuality then you got to sort that out seperatly from being able to have rights as a identified legal partnership.

Now I feel that in a faith based on love and sacrifice, such as christianity that gay marrage should be permitted, but that will be up to the leaders of the faith to decide and to seek guidance on.
Fortunatly for me and most of my friends, a handfasting is permitted for any couple, gay or straight!

Especially since the latter would consist of filling out a form or two

Whe you consider that I have friends that have two wedding aniversaries because they were married as Hindu's and the Hindu wedding cermmony is not considerred to be a legal marriage (I'm not sure about other religions but I'm willing to take a bet that they have the same problem) I don't see why there should be any problem at all about separating a religious wedding ceremony from a legally binding marriage

Here's a little tibit of a debating point i used once on this issue:

'Well, you agree that other religions that believe other things, like Muslums or Jewish people have the right to be married within the boundaries of their own faith, right? I mean, you've never, for example, rallied against a jewish union, correct?'
'i haven't because that's their beliefs.'
'Yet you condemn same-sex marriages because they aren't obeying the rules of your faith?'
'They are going to hell, though'
'Doesn't the christian religion believe muslims and jews are going to hell for not believing in Jesus?'
'Yeah, but that's different?'
'How so?'
'Their faith says that they can get married, and since that's what they believe in, then they should be able to'
'...But what if gay couples believe, in whatever faith they subscribe to, that they can and should be married?'
'That's different though, because they are going to hell'

...
It's really hard to reach some people.

(I like this one quote from the bible- ''for he who lieth with a man shall wake up sore'
Well, dear, that's kind of implied )

The reason a lot of people are against gay marriage is that it provides legal benefits. There are some religous people who just hate gay marriage period but we'll ignore them.

Most people I know who fight against gay marriage aren't doing it for moral reasons, they're doing it for financial reasons. Their argument is that the marriage benefits are subsidies for bearing the burden of continuing society. They don't want to pay this for gay couples as they cannot have children (there are ways to acquire children but not through their procreative act). I don't know what to do about it. In the U.S. something needs to be done soon. The states can't all decide individually. Congress can't get the momentum together to act and most people agree that the Supreme Court ruling one way or the other about constitutionality will be flimsy at best(marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution).

While I'm not against civil unions/marriages what happened in San Francisco was irresponisible and illegal. If you want things to change, they can be changed but not my a maverick mayor defying the state government.

I think we just need to define the unions as unions and marriages as marriages and decide which are the legal benefits of each. The religous and romantic benefits are up to a higher power and the participants respectively

I know someone who has had three kids and is now in a loving relationship with a man. He's blatently fulfilled his quota on the children bingo card - does that mean he can get married to his partner now?

See, I don't see what you gay men are winging about. All you have to do is donate some sperm, get a woman knocked up, acquire the DNA tests to prove it and then no one can complain when you demand to get married too.

Simple as that.

Wasn't there a problem about 'overpopulation'...
perhaps gay marriage should be allowed, so you could file as a married couple when adopting? I know most places look down on adopting out kids to gay couples, but if they got past their predjudices, then more kids could have loving homes...

just a passing thought, and i figured it was worth slapping down on the forum.

I'm a firm believer there is no such concept as overpopulation. We can fill the land, the oceans, the underground, and the sky with people. The limitation will be when we run out of carbon to make human beings out of. By that time the moon will fall from orbit anyways so, problem solved.

The subsidy is not so much an, "Oh, your genetics have continued, have some money," as much as a, "Oh, you're raising three kids, lets help you out a little." There are also still some real psychological testing being done as to whether being parented by homosexual parents is as good an environment. I don't know the answers but I'm waiting for results from some of the studies being done. I know it's not the worst case..... the worst care is psychotic abusive parents but those tend not to adopt children.

It is worth noting that I think some people should not be allowed to reproduce. My only fear is that if the government regulated who could they might ban me.

Yes. we could, in theory (crazy, bizzaro-theory), fill absolutely everything with humans.
and then we would all die of starvation.
Like the countries in Africa are.

There is a thing called overpopulation because the resources that we have in certain areas of the world cannot support the amount of children being brought into them.

(Pure editorial...: I think we should let gay couples adopt, and steralize sexist, homophobes....'Cull the heard', as it were...j/k )

No, the problem is the lack of technological innovation since the Cold War. During the Cold War the West had the Space Race, the Arms Race, and probably a few others in which they 'had' to beat the Soviets. I'll be the first to say that the Cold War was mostly a sham but it was worth it. This generated advances in robotics, electronics, computers, etc. because we had to have the best before 'they' did.

If we want to advance the same way, we need a new enemy. NATO hasn't had a massive boost in military technology in over 30 years. The F-14 (best interceptor deployed to date) came from the 60's. The same can be said with most military aircraft, ground craft, and naval ships. The Space Program is now seen as a sinkhole and we have no real goals there (vague promises of colonizing the Moon and going to Mars).

With the technology we have now and a little innovation the need for real labor could be largely wiped out within two decades. With the lack of a military threat and vested economic interests trying to maintain a great deal of the status quo advancement slows.

There is hope. China may use their refurbished space program to deploy space weapons, encouraging a new arms race. Think of what could come out of that.

I'm just saying overpopulation isn't a real problem that I can see. I do live in the States in the plains where there is plenty of room to grow while Europe has much less (I lived in England for two years). There is plenty of 'dead' land that we could terraform with a little bit of innovation.

Alright, listen up.

Overpopulation IS a problem. Not a potential problem. A real problem here and now. You want to go visit the thousands upon thousands of Africans dying of starvation, malnutrition and lack of access to basic medical facilities and tell me that overpopulation isn't a problem?

I hear what you're saying about us having the technology to solve world hunger today, but that's irrelevant. We have no-one who'll do that. Politics and economics rule the world, and unfortunately, just because we could do something, doesn't mean that we will, or perhaps even should. We could all paint our hands blue and call ourselves Sally, but that's not going to happen either.


Woo-Hoo! Just think how good another Cold War and arms race would be. Great - another 30 years of mass propoganda to terrify the elctorate. Brilliant.


And the reason that land's dead is because it's not worth trying to terraform it. You mention terraforming, but the reality is that it's a vastly expensive procedure, and unless there's an overridding economic reason to do it, it's simply not worth it.

Your post is full of brilliant ideas that are unfortunately based on the premise that the entire human race is populated by alturisitic, giving people who's only concern is the welfare of others. Sadly, that's about as far from the truth as it's possible to be.

The reason those thousands of Africans are dying is pathetic management of resources and a bunch of dumb thugs.

No the fact that we can do it means that when the time comes (i.e. when we have no choice) we will. Yeah politics and economics rule the world. The key is to channel that power not deride it. I was born to wealth and power and have spent time speaking with a few of the United State's congressional leaders. One was an absolute scumball. Another one I spoke to at length was jaded and cynical. The third actually wanted to help people and was dedicated to it but his voting record said otherwise. I asked him why. His response: He can't. If he implements the reforms that are the best for the people he would be committing political suicide. He says he's thought about it....but then what? He vanishes into the night and retires comfortably and someone who may or may not have plan that might lead to long-term success steps in. We're either in the same state or worse off. The system as constituted doesn't work due to voter apathy and greed. "A democracy can't survive once the people realize that they can loot the government's purse."

The Cold War was one of the greatest things that ever happened. It got Germany rebuilt without idiotic sanctions like WWI led to. It kept the peace amongst all the major powers for over forty years. It led to huge advances in technology. The downside might be the ability to 'terrify' the electorate but many of the industrialized nations went through various phases of partisan power (while it may have been scary and utilized by the government, it was equally used by both sides, making it neutral. A lot of money was spent that could have been used elsewhere but as you said people are not altruistic....I'll take what I can get.

Terraforming is an expensive procedure NOW because it's not cost-effective. It's similar to the water supply problem. In school people would drone on about how we were going to run out of water. I asked why we can't use treated seawater. The answer was it is too expensive. The reason it is expensive is no one does it and there's no pressing need for it. Society can and will adapt if that situation reaches 'crisis' levels. We're not gonna run out of water. Same thing with land. When we need it badly enough, we'll get it.

I don't think people are altruistic. I believe people naturally prefer to be good over evil but that they are also selfish. The whole concept behind capitalism is to make sure that the selfish people counteract each other within the system. I believe the point of democracy is to give people with a lust for power the ability to have it and then throw them in a legislative body where they can fight it out. In general, the less that gets done the better but hey, they're a necessary evil.

Had a good laugh when I reread what the original topic was about. Oh how we have strayed.

I'm with Commie on this. When I got married it was a little registry office thing, no religion stuff at all, and nobody made a fuss. According to the church, I'm not married at all. I don't give a monkeys. So I see no reason for church members kicking up a fuss over gays having a registry office marriage, or whatever you want to call it, other than that the church is trying to enforce its beliefs on gay people. Which I think isn't actually legal, is it? Aren't there laws protecting people's religious beliefs? Freedom of worship or something?


I may have said this all wrong, I do that regularly.

Precisely my point. And that's the way of the future. The rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful, and the fubar'd get fubar'd'er. Relying on people to be 'good' is futuile. In an entire world of the lovliest, most giving people you could hope to meet, all it takes is one complete bastard getting into power, and screwing it all up for everyone. And call me cynical, but complete bastards have been around since the beginning of time, and will continue to be around until the sun goes pop.


Exactly. See - those complete bastards all around him would rip him to shreds if he tried to make a difference.



That rather depends on your perception of greatness. Let's not worry too much about all the collateral damage of the Cold War shall we - remember that Bin Laden was trained and supplied by the CIA in the 80s so that he could cause problems in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, shall we? Sure, it kept the major powers from attacking each other directly, but hold your horses for a sec. What about the Cuban missile crisis? Does that count as 'keeping the peace'? You're dead on about the technology though - WW2 saw one of the most accelerated periods of technological development in history. However, we have to ask, at what cost? Is the horror, loss of life, and wider socialogical effects of war really worth being able to download porn from the comfort of your own living room?



I don't agree (again!). I think people naturally prefer to be good, until they get selfish. Then the goodness goes out of the window. The problem (not that I have any ideas of a better system, to be fair) with capitalism is it gives the selfish people an advantage over the good. I fail to see how the selfish people get cancelled out against each other - they're the ones that don't have a moral conscience to keep them in reign.


yup. Oh well

The Cuban missile crisis resulted in a lot of tension and a bunch of Americans digging a lot of holes in the ground. It's real impact was minor. The psychological impact was a little harsher as both sides got to walk to the brink and walk back. They now knew fear. It wasn't counters on a military map anywhere.

I wouldn't argue that WWII was a good thing by any means though it could have been much worse. I have sometimes wondered if Hitler wasn't the anti-hero by blunting Stalin and keeping his dreams of a European Hegemony from coming about. Hitler was an utter cretin but the West may have been saved by German and Russian forces reducing each other. I'm probably biased since I might now be blind without advances that there was no economic incentive to create (space research).

The whole idea of capitalism from the beginning has been to pit the selfish and powerful against each other so most of their time was spent trying to undercut each other rather than oppress the masses. I'm a Utopian and believe that a community sharing system can work but the problem is scale. The societies seem to work until they reach a certain size (in small groups shame can compel others to be good) and then they fall into corruption upon reaching a critical mass. I think the ideal society would be a community, almost tribal system. The problem with this system has always been defense. Small groups get gobbled up by whoever has the most swords/guns. Without some kind of moral or ideological revolution though I can't see a real change.

It made sure Cuba was going to continue to be viciously rodgered by the US for a loooong time though, eh?

I guess it comes down to whether the ends justify the means. While I agree that loads of good things came out of the Cold War (and WW2 for that matter), I don't think I can morally weigh them against the costs and come up trumps.


Yup. Some kind of moral and/or idealogical revolution that encompasses the entire world. Simultaneously.
Call me a pessimist, but I won't be placing any large bets on that happening in my lifetime.

I think the views of the United Church of Canada as recently declared before the Canadian Supreme Court sum up my opinions nicely:

"Theologically and liturgically, the United Church understands both opposite-sex and same-sex couples as sharing the same human dignity of being made in the image of God. There is therefore no theological impediment that would prevent same-sex couples from participating in this union, which is one of the fullest expressions of the covenant between God and humanity. To the contrary, excluding same-sex couples from this expression of the covenant relationship undermines their basic human dignity."

The United Church's factum also draws a clear distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.

"Religious marriage is not, and cannot be, affected by the proposed legislation. All religious communities in Canada, whatever their views on same-sex marriage, have the absolute right to determine for themselves who will be eligible for religious marriage within their communities.
This includes the right to determine whether the community will offer religious marriages to interfaith couples, to divorced couples, or to couples who are not members of the community." http://www.united-church.ca/news/2004/1006.shtm

However civil and religious marriages end up being defined, I think the inclusion of the term "marriage" in both cases is important. I believe the ideas conveyed by the word "marriage" have a certain higher status, - perhaps a greater "respectability" or more "real-ness", if that makes sense?- than the term "union," and I think that gays should be able to use the term "marriage" in a legal way to take advantage of that. I also know that this is precisely why the term is controversial....but hey, there's a reason I affiliate with the United Church.

So, if there's no such thing as overpopulation, why don't you go live in a Tokyo apartment for a while, see how long it takes for your bank statement to convince you otherwise.

Well, with Bush winning in the USA its a moot point for any gay americans isn't it?
Lord Jesus-Bush-Christ thinks its evil and wicked and wrong so another 4 years of unequal rights for gay partners over there.

I have a cousin who went to live in Japan. Japan suffers a lot due to bad government planning and zoning. They continue to try to produce foodstuffs when it's not economically feasible. They need to specialize a bit more. If I had absolute power in Japan within five years everyone would have a home. It's their choice. Maybe they could be the first to create floating habitats. It wouldn't be that difficult.

Gay Americans need to accept that this kind of change is going to be slow. It's a bedrock change in society. It's taking place but it's going to take a little more time. Kerry wasn't a huge gay-marriage supporter either. He didn't have strong views on it at all and if he won I think he'd be afraid to push the issue.

I agree about this being a huge change, and all that, but the difference between Kerry and Buh was that Bush is willing to wage an all out war on gay marriage by trying to make it unconstitutional. Kerry was more willing to sit back and see how things turn out.

Even if Bush does make it unconstitutional, it can be changed back again when and if enough people want it changed back. There would also be ways around any amendment written, I can promise you that.

Are there any historical cases where amendments have been repealed? It was my assumption (nothing more than that) that once it's in the constitution, it's nigh-on-impossible to change. Right to bear arms anyone?

Prohibition was written into the Constitution and repealed a few years later after overwhelming pressure from the public and uncontrollable organised crime. That's the only example I can think of, but that's because mostly amendments to the Constitution are pretty big deals, so the government of the time tries not to mess it up with something stupid.

Strictly speaking an Amendment cannot be repealed - nothing is ever deleted from the Constitution. The Amendment banning alcohol is still there, but a further Amendment negates it. To reverse a previous Amendment, another one must be passed.

Most likely, I think, in the next most terrible four years, Bush will fufill his wish of an amendment banning gay marriage. I also think that soon afterwards, there will be another amendment will pass that allows civil same-sex marriage. The churches don't have to allow same-sex ceremonies and that is all they should be concerned with.

Over-population is a problem in some areas of the world, like Japan, that do not have literally enough space to put people. In America this is not a problem and most likely will not be in any of our life times. There is technology to provide enough food to every single person living on this planet. Genetic enginerring is one of the many technologies that allow this to happen. Some people, most of whom are either involved with Green Peace or are against gay marriage as well (look I tied the topics together!), don't believe in altering the genetics of plants to produce more nutritious and lucrative harvests. I think if everyone got together that leads this world with level heads talked about these things as we do, we would be on the way to a revolution of better living standards for everyone. Personally I think that if there were no immigration controls and all you had to do was register to live in another country, everyone would be much happier, a love it or leave it kind of thing. They do allow gay marriage in the Netherlands (only country I know of, tell me if you know of another)

I'm not sure he'll be able to get that Amendment through. It's very difficult - I believe three-quarters of both Houses of Congress must approve, and one-half of every single state legislature. He could probably manage Congress, but I'm not sure he could get the 50% of the state legislature in California, New York, Massachussetts etc. to support this ban. Especially since Governor Schwarzenegger is on record as being in favour of allowing gay marriage.

You certainly know your America politics. Yes, that does seem right, but I still think it's possible. Do remember that Bush won the election though. He's already banned any futher government funds to go to stem cell research and out-lawed 2nd term abortions in all states. It think he might just get away with it.

US politics is one of the subjects I'm studying at school

He's outlawed second-term abortions? Can you source that? I would have thought that Roe v. Wade wouldn't let him do that, but I can't remember what the exact wording of the ruling was.

Alright, I can't seem to find any information about Bush banning 2nd term abortions so I assume I am wrong about that. Sorry! While looking for that I found a small piece of information that says that no funding is to be provided by the government for an abortion.

My solution to the gay marriage problem would be to abolish any and all marriage-related subsidies. Should be as easy as that.