What is good enough?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Would a federal civil union granting homosexual couples the same effective rights that heterosexual couples have under the current definition of marriage be enough to satisfy the homosexual community?

Or, must the heterosexual community be completely shaken up to extend equal protection under the law? Must heterosexual couples be forced to accept that a homosexual coupling is the same?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,509 • Replies: 157

No top replies

On a personal level, I couldn't care less. However, I have to wonder just how granting gay people the right to marry would "completely shake up" heterosexual couples. What exactly is your objection, should you be "forced" to accept them on equal footing?

0 Replies

Unless you want to get clinical about which organ goes into which orfice, marriage can be defined by "a love that will last beyond the grave".

I agree with the MA courts that denying homosexuals the rights of marriage is discrimination--and illegal.

0 Replies

I mean that it would shake up the foundation beliefs of many. My mother-in-law is second generation Polish and devout Catholic. For her homosexuality by itself is a complete sin and an affront to God. she isn't the only one in america that thinks that way. Especially the older generation.

If you really don't understand how this will shake them up, then you need to re-examine the issue before you more thouroughly.

0 Replies

Actually, for once, I think McG might be on to something, though probably not for the right reason. The idea that letting gays marry somehow takes away something from straights marrying is, I think, silly, but...

Why should the state regulate marriage at all? Seems to me that's a religious rite. And religions can decide who they want to let marry.

What the state should regulate is civil union, and that would determine who gets the benefits that spouses are now entitled to. And those benefits should be the same for gays and straights.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I mean that it would shake up the foundation beliefs of many. My mother-in-law is second generation Polish and devout Catholic. For her homosexuality by itself is a complete sin and an affront to God. she isn't the only one in america that thinks that way. Especially the older generation.

If you really don't understand how this will shake them up, then you need to re-examine the issue before you more thouroughly.

You say that as if "shaking up" those beliefs is a bad thing. Hell that's a point in its favor.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I mean that it would shake up the foundation beliefs of many. My mother-in-law is second generation Polish and devout Catholic. For her homosexuality by itself is a complete sin and an affront to God. she isn't the only one in america that thinks that way. Especially the older generation.

If you really don't understand how this will shake them up, then you need to re-examine the issue before you more thouroughly.

You say that as if "shaking up" those beliefs is a bad thing. Hell that's a point in its favor.

In your opinion. In others opinion, it would not be.

0 Replies

I have wondered this same thing. Why would gay people care what they called it, as long as they have all the same rights? But, for gay people, I can see how they might interpret civil unions as a "separate but equal" issue. It's a tough call.

0 Replies

On the other hand, I could care less.

0 Replies

Actually, I agree with D'Atagnan that marriage is generally more of a religious union.
Therein lies the problem.
Many people who aren't religious also get married, however. Should their marriages count for less too, McG?
And your mother-in-law is going to have to get with the times. The world won't stop evolving just because her religious beliefs make her uncomfortable. Too bad for her!
Religious nuts make me uncomfortable, but I don't see them going away or being denied rights because of it.
Religion should stay out of laws, McG!

0 Replies

Indeed, as suzy says, the fact that gay marriage makes some people uncomfortable is not a valid argument against it. The elimination of Jim Crow laws in the South made some people uncomfortable, too...

0 Replies

Change is upsetting. Injustice is also upsetting.

While Gay Marriage (or "equality in marriage") may upset some people it will not make one bit of difference in any practical aspect of their daily lives.

The right to marriage would make great deal of difference for all the people who do not presently have this right.

Suppose both gays and straights were limited to civil unions and the religious rite of marriage had to take place in a church? Not all churches would marry gays--and under the separation of church and state, this would not be infringing on anyone's rights. Some churches would perform gay marriages and this would not interfere with anyone's rights.

Civil union for everyone. Marriage according to the tenets of the officiating religious authority. Equal rights.

0 Replies

I am confused now. If you agree that religion should stay out of law, then you must agree that law should stay out of religion. By that logic, a civil union granting equal protection should be suitable for your definition.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If you really don't understand how this will shake them up, then you need to re-examine the issue before you more thouroughly.

I can see no valid reason why a gay marriage would "shake up" a heterosexual marriage and if it shakes up the conservatives in this country, well, this wouldn't be a change from anything else that shakes them up. People need to be shaken, in the proverbial sense. And reminded that religion has no place in law.

(could I have used the word 'shake' any more in this post?)

0 Replies

McGentrix Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:01 pm

Quote:

I mean that it would shake up the foundation beliefs of many. My mother-in-law is second generation Polish and devout Catholic. For her homosexuality by itself is a complete sin and an affront to God. she isn't the only one in america that thinks that way.

For many to simply not believe in their definition of God is a sin. So does that mean that Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, any denomination of Christianity that those in power don't scribe to or any other religious group weakens what your mother-in-law considers the sanity of marriage? Thus they should not have equal rights to marry under the law?

D'artagnan Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:02 pm

Quote:

Why should the state regulate marriage at all? Seems to me that's a religious rite. And religions can decide who they want to let marry.

What the state should regulate is civil union

I don't see why the distinction should be made. I don't think that we need to create a second category to regulate who receives what benefits. Marriage is regulated by the state now, and thus makes it so that the state must give equal rights to all.

Just poking around, I looked up marriage on Merriam-Webster Online, quite interesting definitions. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=14&y=18 )

1.the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law [I assume the definition with which most people are comfortable]

2.the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

BTW I want to vote in the poll, but I'm not sure what are for the yes and no votes. There are three questions in the introduction. I am for giving rights to the homosexual community, but do not believe it would be the downfall of marriage, so I can't vote for "Gays deserve Full and equal rights! Down with marriage!"

0 Replies

The question being polled is above the poll.

0 Replies

In what way does gay marriage really affect the religious people besides believing it is against their religion? I mean, to be honest with you, I don't have the idea there is any difference between pre-gay marriage Netherlands and marriage in the Netherlands now (for the ones who don't know it, gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands).

0 Replies

Oh and McGentrix, the answer to "what is good enough?" is equal rights to live and love. To be treated like human beings instead of sub-human sickos who have a disease. To be accepted in the most basic sense.

0 Replies

Rick, as you seem to have the stats, what is the average life span for a gay marriage in the Netherlands?

Kristie, No one is saying that gays do not have equal rights to live and love. Most segments of society have accepted homosexuality. Now, however, gays are asking to be treated differently.

What is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know