[ArGee]

This is a serious question and I really don't know what the answer is. In my mind you either suppot homosexual marriage or you don't support homosexual civil unions (my own position) since they are one and the same. I really don't understand how one can support civil unions while being against marriage.

What am I missing?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Can any of you help here? Ping the usual group arguing both pro and con. I understand the Dims, but not the public in general.

Thanks!

Shalom.

[Political Junkie Too]

What is it with marriage that makes it impossible to call a relationship involving sex, shared property, joint custody of children, inheritance rights, and shared benefits marriage?

The intent to procreate, with the blessings of society.

-PJ

[jwrogers]

Marriage has a definition already. The point that people who hold this belief are trying to make is that there is an argument to be made about whether or not a civil union is a good idea... but that argument has NOTHING to do with whether or not the term marriage should be randomly redefined to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

So, let's set it aside. Let's say marriage has a meaning already and it's not going to change.

Now, let's come up with a new word for homosexual civil union, and have an open and honest debate about whether they should be legal or not.

[Jaysun]

In my view, the idea of civil unions has gained support based on the grounds that homosexuals are being discriminated against by not being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage (taxes, land, property). What everyone has lost sight of is this: Homosexuals have just as much access to those benefits as others do. All they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they choose NOT to do this has nothing to do with the state, with discrimination, or with anything else - it's simply a choice. Remember, it isn't just homosexuals who are "discriminated against" when it comes to the privileges that marriage bring, it's also single people, minors, family members, polygamist, widows, priest (who can't marry), and so on. If someone wants the benefits that come with marriage they should get married. The fact that some don't WANT to marry a member of the opposite sex isn't the state's fault or responsibility to correct. The state encourages marriage (between one man and one woman) because they recognize the benefit that marriage brings to the people involved, their children, and society in general. I think that if people understood this, "civil unions" and homosexual marriage wouldn't even be a valid issue.

[larryjohnson]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled SJC Ruling Irks Local Conservitives, larryjohnson wrote:
In my opinion, marriage should never have been a government institution. The only regulation needed is to protect children and there gov has failed. To get married or otherwise seek approval of living together just for government benefits(tax,insurance,etc) only makes my point that these benefits should not exist(except for children).

[Scenic Sounds]

What am I missing?

I don't think that you're missing anything. If civil unions become the functional equivalent of marriage, then they will differ in name only.

But, politically, that difference can make all the difference in the world!

[MEGoody]

"I really don't understand how one can support civil unions while being against marriage."

You're right - it's the same thing. It's just that the words make people feel better. Sort of like when pro-aborts use the term 'fetus' to make them feel better about baby killing.

[longtermmemmory]

nothing, it is a shell game which will eventually move the "m" word into the religion only arena. The only civil anything will be "unions" under the guise of seperation of church and state.

Once the "m" word is banished then the institution of marriage, with its broad common law legal interpritations of mother and father raising children, will be banished from the legal realm.

The STATUTORY construction of civil unions will then take over with it narrow government given interpritations. Civil unions which are based on two people who want to have sex together, where children are a fashion accessory. The legally narrow defenition of civil union for all can be politically manipulated the same exact way as targetted tax cuts. A broad institution can not be socialily manipulated since it exists outside of statutory construction.

[Mamzelle]

You can provide a legal structure for your relationship to friends, pets, and inanimate objects and call them whatever you like. Even wear white and orange blossoms in your hair. Nobody's stopping you.

But marriage is a thousands-year-old institution with ancient layers of meaning--it is folly to think that you can, on a whim, force a wholesale change in it without paying a serious price.

Think of changing the metric system, or even trying to get rid of the worthless penny. And these infants think they can presto-changeo, what's in a piece of paper, no bid deal...

[hunter112]

What am I missing?

ArGee, we've back-and-forth'd on this in the past, so I don't expect you to accept my answer, but since you asked, here goes:

Americans like to see themselves as a fair-minded people. We've been taught since childhood that our country stands for opportunity and freedom that other nations can only envy. On the other hand, we also realize that equality of result cannot be handed out to those on the outs in our society, unlike the way things are done in socialist nations. We believe in the right of people unlike us to earn money, build up estates, and gain the respect of the community. But we don't necessarily want someone "different" from us being able to do it right next to us. We don't want our kids losing jobs because of affirmative action, we don't necessarily want minority groups climbing the ladder to prosperity in our neighborhood (especially while they're still on the lower rungs), and many people who want to see gays treated fairly don't want them using marriage as the name of the institution that gets them respectability.

The parallel for this was the treatment of black people in the century following the Civil War. Northern, white America was content to have fought and won the Civil War, while allowing "separate but equal" to be the law of the land. It satisfied the needs of the South, yet let Northern folks feel that at least black people had some opportunity. Our nation came face to face with the fact that there was not true equality for blacks in many places, as television brought the contrasting images of Martin Luther King and George Wallace into our living rooms in the 1960's. Today, the 24 hour news channels and the Internet bring images of gay people into our consciousness in a similar way, and while many people in the middle are comfortable with framing gay rights as a civil rights issue, they are uncomfortable with the all of a sudden (as they perceive it) rush from anti-discrimination laws, to gay marriage. It's like the days when people favored integration of schools, but didn't want their own kids bussed to the bad side of town.

Yes, gay marriage and civil unions are the same thing, but the people who say they are for CU, and not marriage, are just not quite ready to deal with the name issue. They still perceive gays as being significantly different from them to psychologically fall back on the "separate but equal" solution that Vermont has put on their radar screen. It appears (to them) to be a reasonable compromise, and people in what I call the "mushy middle" like compromise, rather than confrontation in dealing with political problems.

[Aquinasfan]

This thread is giving me a headache.

[scripter]

Sorry for the late ping - I've been away all day and about to leave again.

[Salvation]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---

[little jeremiah]

People lamely support so-called "civil unions" but say they are against "gay marriage" because they do not want to face the truth that homosexual acts are wrong, against nature, and harmful. They want to go along to get along. They are shamed and afraid of the homo-thought police. They are afraid to take a stand. They are afraid that they might be unpopular, or made fun of, or terminated from their job.

People have been rendered spineless by the gay activists and their handmaidens in the media, and their shills in the government. People are trying to sit on both sides of the fence. It is sick and stupid and I for one am freaking tired of it.

Today at work I got into a discussion with people about gay marriage and one guy said "But people just want love". It isn't about love. Michaelangelo Signorile was quoted on a thread yesterday - he directly stated that the real reason homosexuals want "gay marriage" is not because they want holy matrimony. It is because they want to destroy marriage and the family, especially so they can indoctrinate children about homosexuality right from the start. This is their own words.

People just want to be comfortable, watch TV, and ignore the rising flood water.

[Major_Risktaker]

Most Americans don't support homosexual's period.

[the invisib1e hand]

marriage: defined by The Almighty. Man can rename it, try to change the definition, whatever...it will never change. No union other than a man and a woman can be marriage, regardless of how well it's marketed.

One might as well decree that rocks will fall up.

[Sloth]

As far as I'm concerned, if two homos want to sign a piece of paper binding them in some contractual sense and condifying their defilement of each other, it's none of my business. But the government should not be calling it marriage, because that's a lie. The government can no more correctly declare two men or two women "married" than it can declare a dead man "alive."