Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[The Tofu Islands]

I was referring to the western world's legal recognition and integration of the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of marriage.

Marriage isn’t really a traditional Judeo-Christian concept. It’s existed in one form or another for much longer then that, and the earliest records we have of it are as a legal agreement.

I only take issue with the term 'marriage' because it's a term inextricably associated with religion, and with the current discriminative, 'terms and conditions apply' but still oddly legally recognised ceremony. I don't think there's any place for it in law. People, especially straight couples, would undoubtedly keep using the word 'marriage', and that's fine. I just don't legally believe it should be called such.

I think that the term marriage is fine, it already exists and people know what it’s about. The connotation of religion would probably fade if it became more common to just have civil marriages. And I also suspect that trying to rename all legal marriages to civil partnerships/civil unions/whatever would be a hell of a lot harder then just extending marriage to same-sex couples.

(It’s also notable that there are churches that will perform same-sex weddings. Religious marriage isn’t always heterosexual-only.)

[Cabra West]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I don't see why gay people should be forced to adopt a religiously-entrenched expression when those very religions have rejected them for so long, either.
Obviously there's a legal need in terms of inheritance, adoption and custody law for people to associate themselves in this way, so I think there should be a form of legally recognised union, called, I dunno. The term Civil Partnership works prety well. And that'll be the only legally recognised form of partnership, available to any consenting adults of any gender and any number. (Yep, polygamy. If people want to do it, I don't see any reason why not.) The CP initiation just consists of the involved parties signing a registry and being issued with a document, whilst in the presense of a governmental non-religious witness. People could add their own agreements of inheritance or custody exemption at this point if they want to (such as, exempting all pre 2009 earnings from dissolution (divorce) proceeds). This can be done anywhere, and people can build their religious ceremonies around that if they wish to. If people still want a big church wedding, then that's fine, nothing changes for them. But by and large this system would be hugely fairer (a current Civil Partnership between same-sex couples is NOT the same as getting married, legally speaking, it affords less rights in several areas), free of the regrettable Judeo-Christian religious entrenchment in our legal system, and would be a beacon of freedom and equality.

I doubt that would work.
Can you imagine someone romantically falling onto his or her knees in front of their beloved, and ask them "Will you civil partnership me?"

[New Sociopia]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I don't see why gay people should be forced to adopt a religiously-entrenched expression when those very religions have rejected them for so long, either.
Obviously there's a legal need in terms of inheritance, adoption and custody law for people to associate themselves in this way, so I think there should be a form of legally recognised union, called, I dunno. The term Civil Partnership works prety well. And that'll be the only legally recognised form of partnership, available to any consenting adults of any gender and any number. (Yep, polygamy. If people want to do it, I don't see any reason why not.) The CP initiation just consists of the involved parties signing a registry and being issued with a document, whilst in the presense of a governmental non-religious witness. People could add their own agreements of inheritance or custody exemption at this point if they want to (such as, exempting all pre 2009 earnings from dissolution (divorce) proceeds). This can be done anywhere, and people can build their religious ceremonies around that if they wish to. If people still want a big church wedding, then that's fine, nothing changes for them. But by and large this system would be hugely fairer (a current Civil Partnership between same-sex couples is NOT the same as getting married, legally speaking, it affords less rights in several areas), free of the regrettable Judeo-Christian religious entrenchment in our legal system, and would be a beacon of freedom and equality.

I doubt that would work.
Can you imagine someone romantically falling onto his or her knees in front of their beloved, and ask them "Will you civil partnership me?"

Lol. I don't think we can base our legal system around that. Anyway, people can call it whatever the hell they want, and would very likely in almost all causes be called marriage still! I acknowledge this! I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

[Peepelonia]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

[Skibereen]

Lol. I don't think we can base our legal system around that. Anyway, people can call it whatever the hell they want, and would very likely in almost all causes be called marriage still! I acknowledge this! I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

^this.

[Blouman Empire]

I doubt that would work.
Can you imagine someone romantically falling onto his or her knees in front of their beloved, and ask them "Will you civil partnership me?"

Come on Cabra use your imagination.

On the banks of a lake after a picnic on a Sunday afternoon, I pour another glass of champagne and slip a diamond ring in the flute, when you find it I take you by the hand slowly slip the ring on your finger look into your eyes and say "Will you do me the honour of giving me your hand in a contract that binds our partnership legally together?"

What's more romantic than that?

[Blouman Empire]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

[New Sociopia]

I've always had a strong personal impression of what 'marriage' meant (big thing in a church, white dress, cake) and the people I've asked about it (because I have done a bit of research into this) have as well.

Anyway, my main point about all this is that all people who want to be joined in legal partnership should get the same rights. That's not the case at the moment, a Civil Partnership as it exists isn't the same as getting married, and that's not fair. There should be no difference, which would require legal revision, and I just think an overhaul would be easier and clearer. I don't think that religion should have any legal say in partnerships between people beyond what they specifically choose, and I don't think that can be the case until marriage as it currently exists ceases to, legally speaking. Marriage is a word with a lot of connotations and I don't think that they are necessary or relevant. This is all I'm trying to say.

The system has worked very well in New Sociopia for many years, anyway. People enter into whatever sort of partnership they want and nobody minds. Myself, I live in a polyamorous household of 8 governmental spokespeople.

[Nulono]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

[Tekania]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I don't see why gay people should be forced to adopt a religiously-entrenched expression when those very religions have rejected them for so long, either.
Obviously there's a legal need in terms of inheritance, adoption and custody law for people to associate themselves in this way, so I think there should be a form of legally recognised union, called, I dunno. The term Civil Partnership works prety well. And that'll be the only legally recognised form of partnership, available to any consenting adults of any gender and any number. (Yep, polygamy. If people want to do it, I don't see any reason why not.) The CP initiation just consists of the involved parties signing a registry and being issued with a document, whilst in the presense of a governmental non-religious witness. People could add their own agreements of inheritance or custody exemption at this point if they want to (such as, exempting all pre 2009 earnings from dissolution (divorce) proceeds). This can be done anywhere, and people can build their religious ceremonies around that if they wish to. If people still want a big church wedding, then that's fine, nothing changes for them. But by and large this system would be hugely fairer (a current Civil Partnership between same-sex couples is NOT the same as getting married, legally speaking, it affords less rights in several areas), free of the regrettable Judeo-Christian religious entrenchment in our legal system, and would be a beacon of freedom and equality.

What is with this obsession that somehow if you change the term for a legal concept; somehow it changes everything.... Simply because there is a legal term known as "Marriage" does not mean that the government is "involved in religion"... The "Marriage" defined in civil law has absolutely nothing to do with (for example) a man and women before a priest saying some vows... The only allowance is that in many cases the priest is allowed by the civil law to witness and sign the Civilly issued Marriage License... Of course, most the dudes/dudettes on the Public Defender list can too; and in some localities you can even have an Elvis Impersonator sign it... The whole argument that "Civil Marriage" == Government being involved in religion is absolutely intellectually dishonest....

[Peepelonia]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

[The Alma Mater]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

Are you sure you want to make marriage purely religious, with no legal recognition ? That would after all mean that every religion can define marriage as they see fit. The childbrides, harems, men marrying trees and people urinating in tin foil hats would nullify any meaning the word "marriage" has far quicker.

At least legal recognition gives it some universal meaning. Might not be the one your religion likes - but probably still better than the alternative.

[Blouman Empire]

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

True but it is also wrong to say there is nothing religious about the term marriage.

[Peepelonia]

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

True but it is also wrong to say there is nothing religious about the term marriage.

Well that depends on a few things really, how pedantic you want to be, subjective or objective, and the history of marriage.

It is true that marriage has been around as law for longer than as a religious ceremony, it is true that religion has in the past taken mundane things and 'religiouised' them.

So if a Christain says 'I had a religious marriage' well I'll not gainsay him, but what he says is only subjectivly true.

Remember also that all of this is in repsonse to somebody saying that they did not like the word mariage because it has religious connotations. It don't, not objectivly it does not.

[Milks Empire]

Obviously there's a legal need in terms of inheritance, adoption and custody law for people to associate themselves in this way

What the fuck do you think we've been fighting for?

[The Alma Mater]

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

True but it is also wrong to say there is nothing religious about the term marriage.

True, but the religious meaning tends to vary considerably across religions.

[Fnarr-fnarr]

Disgusting and revolting!!!!!!!

You are indeed!

[Fnarr-fnarr]

inb4 sarcastic comment referencing the frequency with which this topic is discussed on NSG.

Based on a similar line of thought to my opposition of marijuana legalization, I also oppose gay marriage. This is not a strong opposition, as I realize they will not be forcing me to marry a dude and be gay, and as such if it is legalized I shan't be marching in the streets in protest. But if you put a paper in front of me asking to vote yes or no, I would vote no.

You don't HAVE to marry me! We could just have sex.

[Muravyets]

I.e, if a Hindu gay couple want to get married ceremony and all, it would be illegal, even if the temple itself did not discriminate.

Not at all. They could have whatever ceremony they wanted. It's just that signing the registry would have to be a part of it.

Um...you realize that it already is, right? You realize that all marriage is civil, if it is legally recognized, right? You realize that all this bruhaha about religious marriage is just a smokescreen of people who want to deny equality to gays and gain superior social privilege for their own group (their specific religion) to try to confuse people into giving them a claim over at least the trappings of a socially valued institution, so they can continue to discriminate at least socially? And that marriage is and always has been a function of government, not religion -- religions are just trying to usurp that authority now so they can discriminate against people with it. You understand that, right?

[New Sociopia]

I.e, if a Hindu gay couple want to get married ceremony and all, it would be illegal, even if the temple itself did not discriminate.

Not at all. They could have whatever ceremony they wanted. It's just that signing the registry would have to be a part of it.

Um...you realize that it already is, right? You realize that all marriage is civil, if it is legally recognized, right? You realize that all this bruhaha about religious marriage is just a smokescreen of people who want to deny equality to gays and gain superior social privilege for their own group (their specific religion) to try to confuse people into giving them a claim over at least the trappings of a socially valued institution, so they can continue to discriminate at least socially? And that marriage is and always has been a function of government, not religion -- religions are just trying to usurp that authority now so they can discriminate against people with it. You understand that, right?

This is exactly and completely and utterly the point. Denying them the ability and any veneer of authority they might claim to have any say over it at all.

I fear that everyone's missed the point of what I proposed.

[The Southron Nation]

"Lawsuits" will only happen if there are legal rights being violated. But to have legal rights, you need to have a legal institution of marriage.

eh? i was suggesting that a hospital be sued for refusing to service a homosexual couple in the same manner it services a heterosexual couple. is there a legal institution of sexuality? no. but there is a legal definition of discrimination. there need not be a special law for gays. the constitution does not provide an explicit, or even implicit, clause for the visitation of hospitalized companions. but, we all recognize the right of a child to see its parent. a friend see his friend. a mother to see her son. so on and so on.

you and others seem to forget that hospitals are filled with actual people, just like you. they sympathize, they suffer, they exist. the hospital is not some amorphous being that hates this or that section of society arbitrarily. dont be silly. if a hospital encourages discriminatory behavior, sue them for all they are worth, and open your own non discriminatory hospital. of course this presupposes a lack of gov't institutionalization.

As for "social outcry", that's making the capacity of same-sex couples to be discriminated against dependent not only on other people not being overtly hostile, but further on other people actively caring every time. The track record with that isn't so great.

it is quite obvious in many states and cities that the populist leanings of the public tend to favor homosexuality. social outcry is indeed a force that can be wielded with success by the LGBTQIA community. and again, there are plenty of homosexuals in the healthcare industry, why not seek them out for support? you don't need the help of gov't to do everything, do you?

They do, sometimes. And while hospital visitation rights are tied to being in a romantic relationship with someone, going to a restaurant with someone of the same sex is not. There is no relationship recognition involved in this case; it's apples and oranges.

this is silly. a service is a service. period. the circumstances of the couple don't matter in the slightest. chick-fil-a is notorious for sponsoring anti-homosexual student organizations activities and yet, curiously, it does not turn away homosexual (flamboyantly and otherwise) couples. why? b/c it is a business in the business of earning business. they cannot do that by turning away paying customers. a hospital is no different. no matter how you try to phrase it.

Did you bother to read the provisions people quoted at you from the Confederate Constitution before you indulged in this revisionist history?

The Confederacy was explicit from the start about being founded on slavery and white supremacy; read the Cornerstone Speech, or South Carolina's Declaration of Secession. And, as others have cited, note the provisions explicitly enshrining the institution into permanent law in the Confederate Constitution. They fought the war to keep slavery intact; they weren't about to run the risk of dealing with that again...

yes i did, indeed, read the speeches, compacts, and laws. apparently the provisions and the writings of the founders of the Confederacy and the Union have been lost on you. rugged individualism and states rights were the theme of the day. anti-federalism and jeffersonianism were rampant. the Confederate leadership thought, "so what if South Carolina and Alabama seek to entrench slavery further. they only hurt themselves. eventually, they'll come around." you misread the lack of Federal compulsory emancipation as a reverential embrace by all parties. it simply isn't so. very few of the governors were pro-slavery. again, with only 2 nations remaining in the world as slave holding nations, and both of those nations in extreme poverty by comparison, the reasoning was simple. slavery, was on the way out. and the Confederates knew it.

[Dyakovo]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

As has been pointed out repeatedly marriage is not (just) a religious term, it is also a secular one and all evidence points to it being a secular term before it was a religious one.

[Omnicracy]

I was referring to the western world's legal recognition and integration of the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of marriage.

Marriage isn’t really a traditional Judeo-Christian concept. It’s existed in one form or another for much longer then that, and the earliest records we have of it are as a legal agreement.

I only take issue with the term 'marriage' because it's a term inextricably associated with religion, and with the current discriminative, 'terms and conditions apply' but still oddly legally recognised ceremony. I don't think there's any place for it in law. People, especially straight couples, would undoubtedly keep using the word 'marriage', and that's fine. I just don't legally believe it should be called such.

I think that the term marriage is fine, it already exists and people know what it’s about. The connotation of religion would probably fade if it became more common to just have civil marriages. And I also suspect that trying to rename all legal marriages to civil partnerships/civil unions/whatever would be a hell of a lot harder then just extending marriage to same-sex couples.

(It’s also notable that there are churches that will perform same-sex weddings. Religious marriage isn’t always heterosexual-only.)

1) It doesn't matter where it first apeard. If it happend only two centuries ago it would still be tradition at this point. Could people please stop making this argument?

2) I fail to understand why changing the legal name of marriage is viewed as so difficult. You basicaly chang the word they say in court and whats literaly written on the document, and then everyone still calls it marriage anyway. Why is that so hard?

[Omnicracy]

I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the legal recognition of marriage. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I don't see why gay people should be forced to adopt a religiously-entrenched expression when those very religions have rejected them for so long, either.
Obviously there's a legal need in terms of inheritance, adoption and custody law for people to associate themselves in this way, so I think there should be a form of legally recognised union, called, I dunno. The term Civil Partnership works prety well. And that'll be the only legally recognised form of partnership, available to any consenting adults of any gender and any number. (Yep, polygamy. If people want to do it, I don't see any reason why not.) The CP initiation just consists of the involved parties signing a registry and being issued with a document, whilst in the presense of a governmental non-religious witness. People could add their own agreements of inheritance or custody exemption at this point if they want to (such as, exempting all pre 2009 earnings from dissolution (divorce) proceeds). This can be done anywhere, and people can build their religious ceremonies around that if they wish to. If people still want a big church wedding, then that's fine, nothing changes for them. But by and large this system would be hugely fairer (a current Civil Partnership between same-sex couples is NOT the same as getting married, legally speaking, it affords less rights in several areas), free of the regrettable Judeo-Christian religious entrenchment in our legal system, and would be a beacon of freedom and equality.

I doubt that would work.
Can you imagine someone romantically falling onto his or her knees in front of their beloved, and ask them "Will you civil partnership me?"

I just got it! That argument is the other side of the coins equivilant of the "it will destroy the sanctity of marriage" argument! THATS how it doesn't make sence but people keep saying it like it does!

[Omnicracy]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

So because marriage means nothing to you religiously, its wrong if it has a religious meaning for anyone? Thats just as wrong as saying marriage currently has no legal meaning!