Cast Your Vote:
- Yes -- Votes: 36
- No -- Votes: 8
<blockquote><b>Quoting Mrs. Sherwood:</b>" So, is it just the word marriage, in a legal sense, that you think should be changed for everyone? Do ... [snip!] ... I would dislike it if my marriage suddenly became a civil union in the eyes of the law, but that's just me of course. :)"</blockquote>
I believe that anyone should be allowed a religious ceremony, if they choose. If a church will marry a gay couple, they should be able to. On the flip side, I also feel that a church shouldn't HAVE to marry anyone, if that's what they choose.
...and I wouldn't mind if my marriage was changed to a civil union in the eyes of the government. No offense taken if they were to change that. The government, spiritually, has nothing to do with my marriage. I completely separate the two, easily.
How I feel personally (my convictions) do not need to be honored my the government or anyone else.
I'm just trying to figure out how to make the most people happy.
Another thing that someone said in this thread is that civil unions do not offer the same benefits of a marriage. If that is the case, I COMPLETELY disagree with that. They should, without a doubt.
Of course it's a civil rights issue. The laughable thing about Christians is they act like it has anything to do with the "sanctity" of marriage, but you don't see them coming out in hordes to vote to make marriages illegal for straight non religious couples. Or to make divorce illegal. But making gay marriage illegal is super important.
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting human making in progress:</b>" see, from christian to christian, ... [snip!] ... a side note: Your response in this thread was easy to read, clear, concise and not at all defensive...and I appreciate that."
This was funny, because I was going on 3 hours of sleep for 48 hours. after this, I got my son to sleep and passed the f*ck out. I screwed myself over with homework/finals, but man that felt nice. lol.
I know LGBT who feel that civil unions are good and a comprimise.
but sometimes, theres just something different about the way its said.
for years upon years, people have taken pride in being able to say they are 'married'. They are 'husband and wife'.
To have every right under the law as married people is nice. if all civil unions actually offered that anyway (they dont-I cant recall it now, but when I was in highschool I did my senior project on this, I researched each right, benefits, etc. by state and while it looks to be the same, its only similar, not a mirrage of rights.)
but that still takes away just what your arguing for-the name.
try to tell yourself your DH and you are civil unioned. it doesnt sound as meaningful as married, the reasoning is not necessarily because of religious background. it doesnt hold the same level of commitment as viewed by society.
Growing up, I didnt go to church, I didnt want anything to have to do with a church or religion (funny that I should marry a man who would end up becoming a pastor. lol) but if you were to tell me that when I found someone to love, I couldnt marry them, I would be civil unioned to them, it would feel like a slap in the face. and I do know this, because I have thought this over.
growing up I have always found more attraction to women, so I mainly dated women. I found this outcome as a very serious topic, that I would more than likely go through it. My husband was one of the only exceptions to the only women rule I held, couple years later I got involved with the church, and each year I get more and more involved. but my point being is that I was in this position coming to terms with the fact that I may never actually get married, though I may get civil unioned.
For those of us who grew up with both parents who never got divorced, the thought that you cant get married, have a marriage such as theirs, is hard to swallow.
sometimes its just the names we give our rights, that give it meaning and value to society, and therefore, meaning and value when viewing those with these named rights.
if segregation was still in place today, but the black american boys and girls, women and men were no longer being targeted, and say that a portion of them were okay with it (in the states that have civil unions and gay marriage, more and more are taking their civil marriage a step further, getting married, showing that the majority of those committed in civil unions would rather a marriage) would it still be equal?
Quoting human making in progress:" This was funny, because I was going on 3 hours of sleep for 48 hours. after this, I got my son to sleep ... [snip!] ... getting married, showing that the majority of those committed in civil unions would rather a marriage) would it still be equal?"
I agree. It may be small, but being able to say I'm legally married means something to me. Our religious marriage means more to DH & I than our legal marriage, and regardless of what the government calls it we would still refer to ourselves as "married". However everyone has the right to be able to say "I am married to the person I love", be it religiously or legally.
Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Emmy&Jazzy:</b>" What the f**k. Ok he may have not died defending ... [snip!] ... True, the government isn't giving the same bennies to gay couples, but they should not have to redefine marriage in order to."
So you're cool with marriage being redefined SEVERAL times to what it is now but you're not okay with it being redefined to include gay couples? You are aware that if marriage had never been redefined then you would be considered your husband's property, he would legally be allowed to rape you, and your father could sell you for 50 goats, right? So tell me again about why it's wrong to redefine marriage?