1. Ohara Library Banner Contest

    The Beasts Pirates demand your services.
    Join the OL Banner Contest!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Winter is coming one last time...

    Dismiss Notice
  4. Come enter in the KCC Cooking Contest!

    Dismiss Notice
  5. The Anime Awards of 2018 have started! Click here to see the post!

    Dismiss Notice

Civil Unions v Marriage

Discussion in 'Perspectives' started by Botzu, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. Botzu Code Monkey

    Messages:
    1,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    How come we cant just change civil unions so that they give the exact same benefits as marriage? When i think about it its really the name marriage that brings up all the conflict not the idea of what it is. When i say this i mean I surveyed a couple dozen people and none of them were against civil unions for gay couples but around half were against marriage. Why have i never heard about changing civil unions and only about changing marriage?
    If civil unions are changed and given the same benefits as marriage and civil unions are allowed for gay couples would their still be a problem?
     
    Tags:
  2. That NOS Guy The Pilot Who Lives by Pride

    Messages:
    2,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Does "seperate but equal" ring a bell?
     
  3. Seelas on a Forums Break

    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    What they should really do is outlaw marriage as a governmental institution, offer equal civil unions for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, and then allow the churches to decide whether they want to recognize any given union as "marriage" in the religious sense.
     
  4. EvilMoogle Well-Known Member Supporting Staff

    Messages:
    22,295
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Pretty much as said above. The government could stop recognizing marriage altogether and start using a different term for it, but certain factions within the population would never allow it to happen.

    Not to mention the legal mess that would happen trying to shift things over.
     
  5. Firedraconian Lather, rinse, repeat

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Heck, they change the name for the war about every other week, changing the term for marriage shouldn't be overly difficult.

    Just start calling it a civil union in the paperwork. No one reads it anyway. Don't even announce it, just change the name. Then announce homosexuals won't get marriage - they'll give civil unions. Which will just happen to what heterosexuals are getting.
     
  6. kelleh Crotchety old bat

    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    A "civil union" is essentially the definition of marriage, despite what religious people will try to tell you. Marriage predates religion, especially as conceived today. And, government being secular as it is, there's no reason religion should even get involved while we try to preserve the "sanctity" (a fantastic joke) of marriage.

    A lot of civil union legislation actually does pretty much entail everything a marriage does. The only thing in the way is people not wanting to CALL it marriage. There's honestly no reason not to. It keeps everyone who's becoming legally, romantically, and sometimes spirtually "bonded" on the level.

    It's funny to note that while nobody seems to mind gays and lesbians having the marital rights that married couples do, they only seem to mind that, in order to get those rights, they want to get married. Sounds mostly like people are getting their panties in a holy twist.
     
Loading...