Should Marriage Be Replaced by Civil Unions?

[Saint]

It is a hot topic in US now.
From my point of view, without reference to religious teaching, it is OK as long as they are faithful to each other.

 

[ShawnD]

No problems here. Since it doesn't hurt anybody, I'm totally ok with the idea.

 

[jgravatt]

Yes. equal rights mean equal rights. enough said.

Jeremy

 

[Evo]

I think it's right.

 

[kawikdx225]

What happens in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. I only object to gay marriage when it is thrown in my face. Who you have sex with is a private matter and should not be broadcast or pushed like a new fad. Seems like I can't even turn on the TV anymore without coming across a show about gays.

This goes for hetro's too (Janet Jackson), keep your sexual body parts and ideas to yourself. I'm tired of trying to explain this crap to my kids.

 

[rick1138]

I support a constitutional admendment defining marriage as a contract between a man and two women.

 

[NateTG]

Marriage is a social, civil, fiscal and religeous institution. Marriage is making a public commitment and public recognition of that commitment. It's not really about things that take place in the bedroom, but about inheretance, hospital access, health benefits, tax benefits, or having children. There is a long and well-documented tradition of marriage for financial, and political reasons in most of the world.

One of the big problems in the 'gay marriage' issue is that people have conflated the religeous, legal, and social notions of marriage. As a result, marriage is a word with many different meanings for different people.

Now, to the question: "Do you agree with gay marriage?". Do I think that gay couples should receive the same legal protections, privileges and resposibilities that straight couples do? Yes. Do I think that the government should be issuing marriage licenses to gay people? No - I don' t thinkt that the government should be in the marriage or marriage license buisiness at all.

In my opinion, marriage, and married should be systematically removed from the laws in this country, and be replaced by fiscal unions, civil unions, child-bearing unions, or other legally, and not religeously, defined relationships.

Then marriage can be a ceremony that is performed independantly of the government at whatever non-government institution, and people who have a prejudicial notion of marriage can shove off.

 

[Mike2]

Do you honestly think that is the correct use of those things? To me it's like putting a square peg in a round hole because you're "in love". If it is not right to make laws against what seems to be the obvious correct usage of those things, then what right do you have to make laws againt seemingly more arbitrary things, such as how many parteners you can have or the age of consent?

 

[member 5645]

I am against it.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm against "gay marriage" much like I'd be against a constitutional amendment that shears will henceforth be known as scissors. (I reserve the right to be against "gay marriage" for other reasons as well)


I'm certainly in favor of reviewing the benefits enjoyed by traditional families to see if they should also be applied to other arrangements, or even if they should be revoked. However, I would most certainly be against such a review solely for the purpose of seeing if "gay couples" should enjoy the benefits.

 

[FZ+]

I agree with gay marriages - the point of an institution like marriage is a private, and public one. Privately between individuals the state has no right to interfere in how they view their relationship. Publically, a principle of equality must apply in the eyes of the law, and society.

The slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. Either the laws against further forms of relationships are indeed arbitary, and so vulnerable when the arbitary barrier against gay marriages are gone - and so the laws deserve to be changed. Or such laws will continue to be necessary, and so gay marriages will not be able to influence it. Do we have so little faith in the strength of our own moral principle?

 

[Loren Booda]

Do you agree with gay marriage?

One might ask, does gay marriage agree with you?

I have found gay couples to be as responsible as straight couples, and fiercely defended by their children (many of whom were considered unadoptable). Part of that responsibility, I believe, should be the right to a civil union allocating financial and other governmental privilages similar to those enjoyed by conventional unions.

I am sure there have been civilizations in the past, if not today, where same-sex unions were a fundamental part of society.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by NateTG
In my opinion, marriage, and married should be systematically removed from the laws in this country, and be replaced by fiscal unions, civil unions, child-bearing unions, or other legally, and not religeously, defined relationships.

Then marriage can be a ceremony that is performed independantly of the government at whatever non-government institution, and people who have a prejudicial notion of marriage can shove off.

I totally agree with this. That said, if forced to choose between the status quo and allowing gay marriage, I would allow gay marriage.