3 ms·

The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep gover

The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep government out of the bedroom." Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural war over the term "marriage"? If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then that solves the equality problem. Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty unlikely. "Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30 years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union". So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?

cbrinker 18y ago
So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy! Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt? This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?
- khafra 18y ago
  I see a common thread between your post and the gp--marriage vs. civil union is an artificial distinction. The best solution I've heard is to remove government-sanctioned marriage, and replace it with civil union. Religious institutions can still perform religiously-recognized marriages; so there's no controversy over eroding definitions. Government gives the same rights and privileges to civil unions, regardless of who's involved in them, so there's no controversy over differing levels of privilege. The only push-back I anticipate would be from the Dominionists who can't stand seeing church and state separate a little further.

cbrinker 18y ago

So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy! Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt? This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?

khafra 18y ago
I see a common thread between your post and the gp--marriage vs. civil union is an artificial distinction. The best solution I've heard is to remove government-sanctioned marriage, and replace it with civil union. Religious institutions can still perform religiously-recognized marriages; so there's no controversy over eroding definitions. Government gives the same rights and privileges to civil unions, regardless of who's involved in them, so there's no controversy over differing levels of privilege. The only push-back I anticipate would be from the Dominionists who can't stand seeing church and state separate a little further.