Robert Monroe Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The problem with group relationships is not the morality of the issue, its the durrhurr who owns what property issue. Plus shit like insurance plans, and children's rights, and home income levels, and durrhurr shit like that. Personally I don't care who fucks what how who which way from Saturday, but yeah. Legal bullshit I don't even care for is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But what if people want to say they're getting married instead of civil unionized? A civil union is a civil union and not a marriage because it usually does not have the same benefits as marriage does. To say civil unions should have the exact same benefits as marriage is to say that it should be, well, a marriage. To address this: Marriage is a cultural rite. Civil union is a legal union. Marriage in the USA at least, has mingled the two of them. They SHOULD have the same benefits as a marriage, and then have marriages be optional ceremonial hoo-ha for those who care about that sort of shit (like myself). Otherwise, you get people sueing churches for not marrying them even though the church disapproves of whatever marriage they're trying to have and shit like that. tl;dr revamp the marriage system entirely because its bullshit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namulith Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 But what if people want to say they're getting married instead of civil unionized? They can go ahead and call it that. A civil union is a civil union and not a marriage because it usually does not have the same benefits as marriage does. And why do civil unions not provide the same benefits as marriages? What positivity comes from that? To say civil unions should have the exact same benefits as marriage is to say that it should be, well, a marriage. As of today, The word "marriage" has connotations that enough people think of to give problems for a movement in favor of letting gays marry (for example). Using a different word instead of marriage for when a man+woman (for example) can have certain benefits would hopefully deal with this, since those who are members of marriage featuring religious groups who would oppose the marriage could still oppose marriages of two men within said groups while saying the two men who got a civil union weren't really married. Arguing semantics it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The problem with group relationships is not the morality of the issue, its the durrhurr who owns what property issue. Plus shit like insurance plans, and children's rights, and home income levels, and durrhurr shit like that. That's a problem even with monogamous relationships though, and why we dedicate news space for months of following the gruelling divorce trials of celebrity couples. As of today, The word "marriage" has connotations that enough people think of to give problems for a movement in favor of letting gays marry (for example). Using a different word instead of marriage for when a man+woman (for example) can have certain benefits would hopefully deal with this, since those who are members of marriage featuring religious groups who would oppose the marriage could still oppose marriages of two men within said groups while saying the two men who got a civil union weren't really married. Arguing semantics it may be. That's still saying gays cannot get married. Gays do, indeed, want to get married. Because marriage is the sacred totem of relationships that people generally strive for, and to allow gays to only partake in something else is diminishing the importance--in society's eyes, anyway--of the union. Saying "don't let gays get married because it might offend people" is the same thing as saying "don't let blacks marry whites because it might offend people" or "don't marry out your religion". What about atheists? Are they not allowed to get married? The thing is, the most vehement opposition of gay marriage--in America, at least--are Christians who see it as a threat to their standard of marriage. However, Christianity did not invent marriage. The act of marriage has been stated to "pre-date reliable recorded history". The Ancient Greeks married. Pagan religions married. To disallow marriage for a particular group of people based on the temper tantrums thrown by another group of people is not entirely acknowledging what marriage really is, and is focusing on giving the baby its pacifier rather than promoting love. I live in Canada. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2005. This doesn't impede the marriage of heterosexuals or the ability of the religious to worship, and Canada has yet to be wiped off the planet out of His Wrath, so to claim that somewhere like America should disallow it because "some people might not agree with it" is faulty. And calling a "civil union" a marriage, with the exact same benefits, makes it a marriage, so if you want there to be civil unions (that can be called marriages) then all you're arguing for is the allowance of...marriages. Which you then argue against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The term "marriage" carries with it automatic respect from the community that "civil union," "domestic partnership," or whatever other euphemism you want to invent does not. It means something to introduce yourself and your partner as a married couple, not a "civilly united" couple or however it would go. In our society, it's a mark of the greatest level of sanctification a relationship can achieve. To say that a "civil union," a separate institution from marriage, is equal to marriage is to dredge up the good ol' "separate but equal" argument. And no, they are not equal. The benefits of marriage over civil unions/domestic partnerships are not purely legal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namulith Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 That's still saying gays cannot get married. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not trying say that gays shouldn't "marry". More that the state would move away banning people from being married and thus have more freedom. I'm not really in favor of the state and government deciding which group of consenting adults can and can't marry. Frankly, the state currently doing that is too much restriction. Gays do, indeed, want to get married. Because marriage is the sacred totem of relationships that people generally strive for, and to allow gays to only partake in something else is diminishing the importance--in society's eyes, anyway--of the union. A gay couple could still choose to be "married" from a church (for example) who won't oppose them. The plan has the state avoid pushing forward laws saying so. The same goes for polygamists and polyandrists. Saying "don't let gays get married because it might offend people" is the same thing as saying "don't let blacks marry whites because it might offend people" or "don't marry out your religion". As already said, the plan would have the state avoid pushing forward any laws saying so-and-so persons can't marry. Any adult persons can gain a civil union. Laws saying two men can't marry would be avoided. What about atheists? Are they not allowed to get married? Well, yes they could, insofar there would be no laws against it. Hopefully The thing is, the most vehement opposition of gay marriage--in America, at least--are Christians who see it as a threat to their standard of marriage. However, Christianity did not invent marriage. The act of marriage has been stated to "pre-date reliable recorded history". The Ancient Greeks married. Pagan religions married. To disallow marriage for a particular group of people based on the temper tantrums thrown by another group of people is not entirely acknowledging what marriage really is, and is focusing on giving the baby its pacifier rather than promoting love. The plan is not supposed to restrict marriage for one particular group. Rather, it's giving all groups of consenting adults the option of civil unions while avoiding passing laws saying so-and-so adult peoples with consent can't marry. More openness, and less restricting. I live in Canada. Gay marriage has been legal here since 2005. This doesn't impede the marriage of heterosexuals or the ability of the religious to worship, and Canada has yet to be wiped off the planet out of His Wrath, so to claim that somewhere like America should disallow it because "some people might not agree with it" is faulty. We can't all be as good as Canada. And calling a "civil union" a marriage, with the exact same benefits, makes it a marriage, so if you want there to be civil unions (that can be called marriages) then all you're arguing for is the allowance of...marriages. Which you then argue against. Hey now, I never said gays shouldn't marry. That was not what was said. What was said was the state could give unions and not forward laws saying they can't. If I haven't been clear enough in these posts, then I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namulith Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 To address this: Marriage is a cultural rite. Civil union is a legal union. Marriage in the USA at least, has mingled the two of them. They SHOULD have the same benefits as a marriage, and then have marriages be optional ceremonial hoo-ha for those who care about that sort of shit (like myself). Otherwise, you get people sueing churches for not marrying them even though the church disapproves of whatever marriage they're trying to have and shit like that. tl;dr revamp the marriage system entirely because its bullshit. That is what I'm looking towards. The state giving unions as a option, while not restricting "marriages" for consenting adults. A couple could first gain a "union" and then be "married" if that's what they desire. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 That is very true, Dras (the property ownership thing). The issue just gets larger with larger relationships. But hey I guess you could say that as "well it doesn't work with 2 people so why the fuck not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 @Namulith: Ah, I see. Yeah, that wasn't really coming across in some of the wording (or my brain has been fried by playing too many video games), but if it's what Robert was saying then that makes sense. @Robert: It does to an extent, but if someone enters a marriage and decides to cut it off and then cause a bunch of problems in the proceedings, that's their problem to deal with, as it is with any sensible adult that enters into any sort of legal and/or personal agreement with one or more persons. There's also the fact that polyamorous relationships currently exist, and they generally manage to figure it out. It should be the right of any person to enter any sort of union they choose and then regret it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Like I said, it just boils down to WHY THE FUCK NOT. And like I said before then, I don't even curr. I really have no opinion on the matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts