a Time article that clearly represents my view on gay marriage

[zulemara]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html?xid=rss-topstories-cnnpartner

 

[Timon-n-Pumbaa Fan]

That is a compromise idea that I could certainly live with.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I have said for years that is how it should be done. I for one have no issue with my "marriage" changing names to a "union" or whatever it would be called so long as everyone is treated equally
The article points out that some long married couples would feel they had "lost" something if the name is changed. Yeah, maybe they will (though they can still get "married" in church), but then doesn't that totally refute the often touted argument that civil unions are just as good as/equal to marriages and no one should argue over semantics? (not to mention we figured out seperate but equal doesn't work decades ago-some people never learn anything in school )

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I've got no problem with this. I don't care what you call it if it allows everyone to participate and be made to feel whole, although in my house my "union" isn't always so "civil".

 

[Disney_Villain]

To let a nation have two classes of "marriages" is no better than racial segregation.

Happily married,

-Ken

 

[MickeyDee]

I have mixed feelings about it...and I'm not sure how to express them just as yet, so I shall think on it.

 

[PeterPan09]

To let a nation have two classes of "marriages" is no better than racial segregation.

Happily married,

-Ken

That's the nagging thing in my head too. Separate but equal isn't equal.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I don't see it as separate...

If all "coming together of two consenting adults" were sanctioned by the government as "civil unions" and then "marriage" was defined as a "religious/belief system" blessing, then there is no actual separation.

Those same gendered couples who wished to have a religious component would (serious presumption here, and that is always dangerous) have a connection to a church that would welcome their union and bless it in said "doctrine."

I really think it could work. If I understood a friend correctly, it's what Mexico does. There is the civil component and then an overlay of religion...

We already have the civil only bit, go to city hall and get married any day they are scheduled. No religion involved. Simply recognize that union as being valid for all consenting couples and go from there.

I honestly think it could work. Plus, I have this snooty notion that I don't want my blessed union to the woman I love beyond all reason to be called "marriage" as I find it too tainted with heterosexual grit (Brittany Spears anyone? ). We'll take the nice clean civil union thanks!

The key of course being totally equal for ALL.

 

[soulmates]

I can live with that. I simply want the SAME rights, tax breaks etc as my parents and sister have. I'm not hung up on the term marriage to begin with...so call it what you will, as long as it's LEGAL!

 

[Disney_Villain]

"As long as its legal." I agree with you completely!

Terminology is so hard to deal with as we are re-defining the english language with this issue. As our laws changed over the last decade in Canada, I lived with the term "partner" then "equivalent-to-common-law partner" then "common-law partner" and now "married spouse". Each change took a while to get used to. I wasn't warm to any of them initially!

call it what you will, as long as it's LEGAL!

To DVC~OKW~96:

You have a good point, as long as civil unions give the identical legal status to a marriage. In some countries with civil unions the actual benefits are minimal. Equal marriage resolves this issue.

 

[zeitzeuge]

Thanks DVC, I was waiting for someone to chime in with my thoughts exactly.

I don't care what you call it. If calling it a civil union rather then marriage is what they want to do, yet it gives me the same rights as everyone else, then fine. I feel that getting SOME additional rights is a step forward, not backward. Getting the same rights, calling it something else is a step forward, not backward. As long as we're making strides, that's what matters most to me. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy.

Hell, call it.........Boo Boo Kitty, give me the same rights and great! I'll then go out and get Boo Boo Kittied to my parter.

Ok strange analogy, but it works for me.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Just to be clear, the civil union that I would support would be a legally required action for anyone choosing to be legally "joined" and have the same rights of inheritance, health insurances, etc... all that is currently reserved for the heterosexuals at the federal level.

I am NOT proposing/supporting separate but equal.

Although Z, I do agree for the most part, but I would fear that one step forward would become the norm and we'd not progress. Rather like North Ireland, eh? Ever to be marooned outside the initial intent.

OK, dangerously bad analogy, but hey it's St. Patrick's Day.

 

[yasuern]

Okay not a lesbian - but one of my DEAREST life long friends is and I DON'T understand why same sex unions can't be a marriage?? Very sorry but you hear all these religious folks preaching it will taint marriage and the bible states its between a man and a woman - but I think those preachy#####
need to be more concerned with the divorce rate and how that effects the sanctaty(sp ) of marriage after all wedding vows state "till death do us part"!!



I am sorry if I have invaded this forum - but I get mad - I was over on the theme park strategies forum and I HATE when people say in regards to gay days "They did or didn't see something that offend them" I have been to WDW numerous times and two people holding hands or sharing a little kiss - if it is a man and a woman its acceptable/romatic - 2 men or 2 women - its a scandal??


I don't need to see anything that is hot and heavy between anyone - thats why they have rooms

Okay to be clear(I know too late)

ALL people should be able to be married or all people need to have civil unions - I have been married for almost 20 years and I would not feel something was taken away from me if what our relationship was termed was changed as long as it was applied to ALL not some.


Sue

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

You haven't invaded anything! We are always happy to welcome new folks to this forum.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. Of course it helps that I completely agree with your sentiments!

 

[Timon-n-Pumbaa Fan]

Straight but not narrow or cool straight people aka CSP are totally welcome on this board. By all means pull up a chair and join in.

 

[Timon-n-Pumbaa Fan]

FYI: Things are changing on the DIS.

Everyone, please read this post outlining a very important new policy:

New Policy: Politics and Religion on the DISboards.

Political and religion based discussions/debates/arguments will no longer have a place on the DISboards.

We will be closing the existing threads on these topics.

Thank you for your cooperation and support.