CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gays are trying to force themselves into a club where they are clearly not wanted.
There are two parts to the gay marriage issue.
1. The love aspect
2. The benefits
The love aspect can be resolved in different ways. Gays can:
1. Have their own ceremony with friends and relatives
2. Petition religions to change their stance on gay marriage
3. Start their own religion
The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (of age of consent) to join in a civil union.
In short, this issue shouldn't even be an issue because there are ways around the situation. If you don't want to go around the situation, then you're trying to force yourself in. If you are trying to force yourself in, then clearly, you are not wanted there.
My problem is that I'm an engineer. If the system stands in my way, I either figure a way to navigate through the system or go around the system. I don't waste any effort in trying to change the system. People may see this as a flaw but it is a technique that works.
People see me as an enemy of gays and that is the furthest thing from the truth. I am trying to point out an alternate solution for gays to get what they want in the shortest amount of time.
In short. I don't let a person's "no" stand in my way because I don't recognize that person's right to tell me "no." If you stand there and argue with that person, then you have just recognized their right to tell you "no" and you are now trying to change their their mind to say "yes" so that they let you do whatever it is you want to do. All you have to do is put on your Nikes and just do it.
I'm sorry, you call that a logical conclusion? Where's the logic? Where's the connection? One group is being physically being forced against their will (slaves). gays are not being held against their will. You're comparing apples to oranges in order to make an emotional appeal. "The plight of gays is the same as the plight of the slaves!!!" Oh please, give me a break.
Slaves had no way of navigating through the system (except maybe becoming the house slave). Gays can petition the government for the removal of the word "marriage" from all legal matters and replaced with the words "civil union." They can further petition for same-sex civil unions.
Slaves had no way to circumvent the system (except running away). Slaves could find little joy and happiness in their lives. Gays can have an open wedding ceremony in front of their friends and relatives. Any legal benefits they may be missing out on is just icing on the cake (and can be remedied by the previous paragraph). What you are trying to say is that gays are fighting for the icing on the cake and claiming that by not having the icing they are being treated like slaves. Is this what you call logic?
Gays have been living together, spending the rest of their lives together, loving each other, expressing their love for each other in front of friends and family for ages. If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make them any happier, think again.
Listen, I understand that you're saying something along the lines of not giving up, and that's a good message.
And I also realize those are extreme examples that I used.
But it is ultimately the same thing.
By the same logic it takes to say that gays should stop worrying about getting the right to marry and just work on ways to get around it,
Lincoln could have, instead of freeing the slaves since that was the status quo of the time, simply made it easier to escape to the north or something.
Fine. But it doesn't fix the problem.
And as long gays "work around" the problem of not having the same rights as straight people, the problem is still there.
It's no different than when black people had to drink from a different water fountain,
even if the water fountains had really been the same,
it's still wrong.
That is what is going on.
It's wrong to not allow a group of people all the same rights as everyone else. No matter what alternatives to those rights are offered. Separate is not equal, that's logical, it's right, and the Supreme Court ruled on it a long time ago, so not allowing gays to get married isn't even legal.
Yes, it is wrong. We all agree. But you can't legislate morality. That's the part that drives me up the wall. Someone telling me that something should or should not be legal because it is or isn't morally right. Sometimes the person talking to me about morals is an atheists or is pro-abortion. It drives me insane.
I want to hear logical arguments for it or against it. If not, I want to hear logical solutions.
Just because "they want to get married" does not make it a right, nor does it make it right (or wrong), nor do they necessarily suffer if they don't get it.
Just because "it doesn't hurt anyone" is not a logical argument for it because I can just as easily say, "It doesn't hurt anyone if they don't get married." There are savages living in the bush that don't know from marriage as we know it. They live together, do what comes naturally, and that's that. they don't have a piece of paper that says they are married.
If a gay couple do not have a piece of paper that says that they are married, how are they hurt? They are not hurt. They just don't get "extra" benefits. If I have a piece of candy you want and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have a piece of candy, you don't have something extra, something you didn't have to begin with.
Now, if I take something away from you, then you have a legitimate gripe. These marriage benefits are not taken away from gays. These marriage benefits are just not given to gay couples. If they want those benefits then fight for those benefits. But don't give me some sob story about how you're hurt because you aren't given something you want.
Oh, but they want the same thing as heterosexual couples. Hell, I want a million dollars. CEO's get a million dollars all the time. Am I hurt because I'm not given a million dollars? Am I right in asking for a million dollars? I never had a million dollars before. Do I have a right to a million dollars? Am I suffering? Does it hurt anyone if I were given a million dollars? Why can't I have my million dollars? Maybe I should just figure out how to get a million dollars on my own. WOW!!! What a freaking concept!!! I have control over getting a million dollars!!! And I'm willing to bet every penny of it that once I get it, it wont necessarily make me any happier than I am already, right now.
This crap about wanting to express their love in front of friends and family can be expressed without a legal piece of paper. If you want a legal piece of paper in order for it to mean something, go to a lawyer and have him draw something up. You want commitment? Then specify what it is you expect to get out of the union during and afterwords (in the event it doesn't pan out). Specify exactly what it is you are willing to give up during the relationship and afterwords (in the event it doesn't pan out). Then, if it doesn't pan out, come and tell me how happy that piece of paper made you feel.
If a gay couple do not have a piece of paper that says that they are married, how are they hurt? They are not hurt. They just don't get "extra" benefits.
Don't be silly.
"If a slave does not have a piece of paper that says that he is free, how is he hurt? He is not hurt. He just doesn't get 'extra' benefits. If I have freedom and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have something extra, something you didn't have to begin with."
"If a woman does not have a piece of paper that says that she can vote, how is she hurt? She is not hurt. She just doesn't get 'extra' benefits. If I have the right to vote and I don't give it to you, you are not hurt, you just don't have something extra, something you didn't have to begin with."
"If a Catholic does not have a piece of paper that says that he may lawfully practice Catholicism, how is he hurt? He is not hurt. He just doesn't get 'extra' benefits . . . "
And so forth.
We're talking about the deprivation of basic rights here, mate. The deprivation of basic rights IS a "legitimate gripe."
A slave who doesn't have a piece of paper that says that he is free can be whipped. Not having that piece of paper hurts him.
A woman who does not have a piece of paper that says that she can vote is not represented. If she is not represented, legislation can be passed to beat a woman who refuses to obey her husband. Not having that piece of paper hurts her.
A Catholic priest that does not have a piece of paper that says that he may lawfully practice Catholicism can be jailed for practicing Catholicism. He is thus hurt for practicing Catholicism.
Now it's your turn. Please explain to me how not being able to get married hurts anyone. Gays can have a big ceremony. They can tell people they are married. They can call each other husband or wife or spouse. No one beats them for it. No one throws them in jail for it.
Comparing gays to a slave or a woman who can't vote or a religious group that is being persecuted is stretching it (to the extreme). They have nothing in common. That's like me saying that I'm being treated like a slave because I haven't received my million dollars in the mail. I'm talking about the deprivation of basic rights here! ;)
The rights legitimize the group and create equilibrium. People didn't beat slaves just because they had a paper that said they could or couldn't. Slaves are dehumanized in the eyes of other BECAUSE they don't have rights. BECAUSE the status quo said they were different and not deserving of equality. The perception was that they were sub humans.
There are still people who would beat a black person for being black,and a gay person for being gay just not as many, because extending rights solidifies the perception of equality don't you get that?
If gays are not treated equally it feeds the perception that they aren't equal and therefore a percentage the population will treat them as such. Do you simply not see the violence against gays in this country? It takes a long time to change people perceptions Joe, a very long time. Just look at the examples you gave. In all of those cases the law was changed ahead of the normalizing of the perception it was trying to create. Slavery ended, but civil rights were 100 years away. Women's rights happened, but to this day women make less than men and some asshats still say a womans place is in the kitchen. PERCEPTION.
Finally, Gays marrying is not the argument. Churches can marry who they want and they do. Not all churches are against gay marriage. The argument is the government recognizing WHEN a church marries gays and lesbians in the same way it does for heterosexuals. The churches will do what they want, but the government should not discriminate who it gives rights to. Marriages laws were changed for numerous things ranging from racial marriages to outlawing polygamy so let's not say this is unprecedented. Originally marriage was a contract of ownership of a woman so lets stop all this BS and give these people these rights! I mean, it's not like allowing gay marriage is going to hurt the divorce numbers any more, in fact, in Mass. it has shown to actually help them!
There are still people who would beat a black person for being black,and a gay person for being gay just not as many, because extending rights solidifies the perception of equality don't you get that?
No, I don't get that. You can't legislate morality. Are you trying to tell me that if the government sanctions gay marriage that people will all of a sudden stop beating up gays? That gays will all of a sudden be accepted? Grow up! Only by educating the next generation will gays be accepted into society.
If gays are not treated equally it feeds the perception that they aren't equal and therefore a percentage the population will treat them as such. Do you simply not see the violence against gays in this country?
No, I don't see that. There are laws against hate crimes. If those laws are not working for gays, giving gays the right to get married is not going to change a damn thing. Don't you see that?
The only power the government has over anyone is the power those people give to the government. Don't you get that? No one needs the government to sanction their marriage. If I decide to commit myself to someone and that someone decides to commit to me, that is all that is needed. Everyone has the God given right to pursue happiness. Forcing the government to give you a piece of paper sanctioning your "marriage" does not constitute the pursuit of happiness because your happiness is not dependent on government sanction.
Gays can say they are "married." No one will put them in jail for it. Gays can have a wedding ceremony. No one will put them in jail for it. The government saying that gays are allowed to get married will not change the mind of homophobes. Gay marriage is about benefits. They should fight for those benefits.
Bullshit. Hate crimes bills ARE legislating morality. Most laws are legislated morality. That doesn't mean everyone believes in them, but by putting a consequence to the action you give them a huge incentive to not do the perceived immoral action that was legislated against. You have a long road ahead of you if you don't understand the correlation of peoples perceptions and the law. Again African Americans are a perfect analogy: slaves were freed in 1865, it takes until the 1960's to get civil rights, then 2008 we have a black president. Even you can see that progression. The equal protection under the law precedes the normalization of the minority into the culture resulting in something that could not have happened 20 years ago. That IS how you "educate the next generation". Nothing is sudden. There are still racists out there, but it's not like it was and that is due to that progression. This same progression is what will bring us more representation from the gay community in gay congressmen/women and other aspects of what we consider "public life" as this normalization occurs.
The only power the government has over anyone is the power those people give to the government. Don't you get that? No one needs the government to sanction their marriage. If I decide to commit myself to someone and that someone decides to commit to me, that is all that is needed. Everyone has the God given right to pursue happiness. Forcing the government to give you a piece of paper sanctioning your "marriage" does not constitute the pursuit of happiness because your happiness is not dependent on government sanction.
The government recognizes marriage in many aspects like taxes etc..., don't you get that? The government should not discriminate who it gives said benefits to, do you not get that? Complaining about government involvement in marriage is a bit stupid because the states recognition of your marriage is all that matters in the real world. If I get married in a church but never get a marriage license I am not married in the eyes of the law, it's that simple. Bitch all you want, that's the reality we are working with. Making the government treat you equally DOES constitute pursuit of happiness because if they are not they are in violation of equal protection under the law by favoring one group over another.
Gays can say they are "married." No one will put them in jail for it. Gays can have a wedding ceremony. No one will put them in jail for it. The government saying that gays are allowed to get married will not change the mind of homophobes. Gay marriage is about benefits. They should fight for those benefits.
What do you think they are doing?? Yes, for gay people this battle is about benefits they receive from the recognition that their bonds are no different from heterosexual couples, but the overall struggle for them, as it was/is for black people, is about perception. The perception that they are equal. Why can you not wrap your brain around this?
OK, so if the government can legislate morality, then it can legislate that homosexuality is morally wrong. Right? Or can the government only legislate what you consider morally right? Hmmm....
No, I said it can legislate morality but that doesn't mean that's what people believe as the legislation only punishes immoral actions. That in and of itself does not encourage positive moral thinking. It's just negative reinforcement on behaviors considered outside the norm of societies current moral standard.
YES! That's my point! Negative reinforcement is used for hate crimes and more extreme things in society. Positive reinforcement is things like women's suffrage, or civil rights. Your are positively reinforcing the assertion that they are equal by changing the old norm in the law. Equalizing marriage laws would be positive reinforcement. Whew! That took some work.
The government should not discriminate who it gives said benefits to, do you not get that?
That's right. I don't get it. The government can encourage certain behavior, like recycling. It does this by giving people incentives to recycle like a tax break if you get an electric car or solar panels for the house. But it cannot encourage marriage between a man and a woman because it discriminates against gays? Well, I'm being discriminated against by not being rich enough to buy a new electric car or solar panels. I want my tax break, damn it!
Oh..., wait..., I forgot..., only the stuff you care about is a right. OK, now I get it. Yeah ;)
You see? You go on about all this bullshit when you really just don't want it to be called marriage. You even tried to turn it around like its an attack on straight couples. You said they could have the same rights, right? Then what is the point of not letting it be the same in name as well? I seriously want to know what is at the heart of where you're coming from. Are you religious Joe? Is that why you're so against this?
You are 100% right. I really don't want it to be called marriage. That word should be reserved for religious crap. Civil union should be used for legal crap. I want separation of church and state.
Now, you want to know where I'm coming from? I am not religious. I would like to have a wedding (in spite of the religious connotations) but I don't want any of the legal crap that goes along with having a wedding. Why? because if I were to get legally married to my significant other, we would be taxed at a higher rate. So my angle is the same as gays, namely, benefits!!!
I don't want to lose the current benefit I receive by not being legally married. I want to get married and not lose my current benefit and I want gays to get married and get their benefits. By separating the legal from the religious, gays win and I win. It's a win win situation.
the overall struggle for them, as it was/is for black people, is about perception. The perception that they are equal. Why can you not wrap your brain around this?
You're right. I cannot wrap my brain around that. let me see if I understand. If the law says that they are equal, then I will perceive blacks as... white? No, that can't be right. Let me try again. If I'm racist and the law says that they are equal then I'm not racist anymore? No, that can't be right either. OK, I'll try one last time. The law will tell me what to perceive and that's what I'll perceive. Right? No that can't be right either. I'm sorry. I just don't get you.
I just don't get how civil unions does not protect gays under the law. I just don't get why we can't just get rid of the word "marriage" from all legal documents and replace it with the words "civil unions" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I mean, at least that way I wont have to squint and pretend that I'm looking at a white heterosexual instead of a black homosexual. ;)
Look, you can legislate all you want. I wont deny my senses. when I see a midget, I see a midget, not a height challenged person. Sorry ;)
Jesus Christ on a stick, Joe. All those words and you said nearly nothing.
I just don't get why we can't just get rid of the word "marriage" from all legal documents and replace it with the words "civil unions" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals
This is the only thing you have said in this entire debate that I completely agree with. That would create equality.
Understand, a lot of people are just against gay rights because they think the great jibitywhatwhat brought marriage down from the clouds so if you have a real argument for why another minority should settle for "the same but different" I am all ears, because I've never heard a good one.
Yeah, I'll tell you why they could settle for "the same but different...." because the only thing that could possibly be denied to gays is not rights but benefits. And the government has a right to determine who gets what benefits. So, what's being done is that gays are calling these benefits "rights" and then equating these "rights" to civil liberties in order to get their benefits. The comparison of gay marriage to civil liberties is just hyperbole!
Think about this, if a black person drank out of a whites only water fountain back in the day, he could have been thrown in jail. A gay person having a wedding ceremony wont. There is no comparison between black civil liberties and gay marriage. A black person drinking from a whites only water fountain was not receiving government benefits. Blacks were not fighting for government benefits. Blacks were fighting for real rights. Civil liberties were real rights. What constitutes a real right? Well, if you do something that seems perfectly normal, like getting a drink of water (or having a wedding) and you get thrown in jail, then your rights have been violated. Specifically your right to freedom.
"In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a "basic civil [right] of man.” Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage."
Yes, real rights, Joe. Why do you think I keep referencing the civil rights movement?? We've been through this before. Only last time people were saying colored people couldn't marry whites for ALL the reasons people are saying now and worse.
Except for one very important difference. If a black man lived with a white woman as husband and wife, he ended up in jail. Gays live together as a married couple all day everyday and no one goes to jail.
Are you comparing gay sexual acts to Sodomy? People that practice Sodomy don't go to jail, gays living together doing what comes natural don't go to jail... what are you getting at?
The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (of age of consent) to join in a civil union.
Right . . . but rather than removing every reference to marriage from every state and federal law and replacing it with the words "civil union" and then extending the right to participate in a civil union to gay people and straight people alike, wouldn't it be way easier just to, uh, let gay people get married?
Besides, if the idea of gay marriage is seen as an "attack" on straight marriage, how exactly is the notion of removing "marriage" altogether going to be construed? Not as a friendly compromise, I'm betting.
The issue is that marriage is something performed in a church. The government should never have adopted this word in the first place. If they use the words civil union, the religous groups would have no argument. The christians say "hey you cant let gays get married!" The government says "Hold on a minute, marriage is something you do in the confines of your church. It has no legal bearring. You still must straight or not, get a civil union for us to recognize it."
Simply put, the issue becomes that the government is changing the definition of marriage, which is something that comes from religion. Therefore, they have no right to change that definition.
Oh yeah. Way easier. Which is why gay marriage has come such a long way since it started. ;)
Marriage would only be removed from any legal document. It will still appear in religious documents. The compromise will be a hell of a lot more amicable than the tension that currently exists.
So did countless others when they passed the desegregation acts in Congress. They weren't wanted either but they broke the glass ceiling on that after many, many years of fighting for equal rights. Gays must also fight for their rights and one day, whether you like it or not, they will have them. You don't skirt the issues, you meet them head on.
What rights? The benefits? The love aspect? Where does civil union differ from marriage? What's wrong with removing the word "marriage" from all legal documents and substituting it with the words "Civil Union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals?
It doesn't but do you truly believe straight people won't have the same problem if the wording was ever changed? Gays, as you put it, wouldn't be welcome in that club either!
I think that if the government changed the wording to civil union then straights wouldn't be able to oppose it because the definition of civil union would be "The legal union of two individuals (of age of consent) for the purpose of acquiring government sponsored benefits to said individuals." Straights wouldn't have any grounds to oppose it because the government gets to decide what benefits to give and to whom.
I mean, I doubt that in this day and age of political correctness any significantly large group would say, "They shouldn't get those benefits because they are gay." But right now, the way it is straights have this "Marriage is a religious institution" argument to hide behind.
In California, in spite of what the courts have ruled, gay marriage is not allowed because a large majority doesn't want it. Now, you can change this group's way of thinking over time or you can take away the religious shield they are hiding behind right now by changing the word.
Even if the law was changed tomorrow, what about the churches? The government can't force churches to marry anyone. The only gain would be in benefits which can be obtained through other methods but I believe that civil unions already carry the same benefits as marriage. Also, a change in the law will not automatically gain acceptance for gays. Homophobes will still be homophobes.
Finally, the government has no power over who you make a commitment to. They only have power over who they give any benefits to. Gays can have a wedding ceremony in the open and no one will throw them in jail. Gays can claim that they are married, and no one will throw them in jail. The only thing missing is the benefits which can be obtained through other means, in a quicker amount of time because straights would be powerless to prevent it.
When the government decides to remove the word marriage, there is no ground for either party to argue. Do not even accept what happens in a church as anything legal. Tell those people they still to go get papers for their civil union.
Since you chose to copy and paste your argument into a debate, I shall do the same with my reply:
Force themselves into a club where there not wanted?
How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple? Your argument, which you continue to repeat time and time again, is ridiculous, and you know it.
All gays want is equality, and if the government stopped using the word marriage but instead used civil unions that would be great. Look at this site that advocates equal marriage rights. It gives a number of scenarios:
We want the Flag of Equal Marriage to be complete, with all 50 stars lit up. We see three routes to marriage equality, as we define it:
1. Every individual state could pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.
2. The federal government could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage at the federal level, overriding all state-level bans.
3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.
So here you're arguing a straw man "gays aren't being reasonable" argument.
Back to the whole "joining a club thing" and why it's bullshit. When African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted, should they have stopped?
In addition, marriage isn't a club. There aren't members only meetings where only married people are allowed to get into, and married people don't have to do anything for other married couples. Marriage is the legal (and often religious/cultural) union of two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. So allow me to repeat: how does letting gays marry affect, even a little bit, straight married couples? What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?
If this is the best argument that you can come up with for opposing gay marriage, maybe you need to reevaluate your position and realize how ridiculous you sound (even more so than usual).
Don't let a person's "no" stand in your way. Don't recognize a person's right to tell you "no." If you stand there and argue with that person, then you have just recognized their right to tell you "no" and you are now trying to change their their mind to say "yes" so that they let you do whatever it is you want to do.
Basically what I'm saying is that the way gays have been going about fighting for their rights recognizes the opposition's right to say "no."
Now, I agree with and support this:
3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.
I don't support number one because it means that the rights of the opponents of same sex marriages are being trampled on and they will therefore fight back. In other words, it legitimizes their right to oppose same sex marriage and gives them reason to fight back.
I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights. The federal government has way too much power.
Now, I did not say that gays are unreasonable for wanting same sex marriage. I am saying that if they are trying to follow scenarios one and two above, they are being unreasonable in the way they are pursuing it.
The argument that "it doesn't affect any straight couple" doesn't work because anyone could say, "And? So what? Who cares? The majority has voted. They don't want it!"
The whole "African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted" doesn't work because the word marriage has a religious aspect to it that needs to be separated from the legal aspect. If it can't be removed, then another word needs to take its place.
You ask, "What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?" The answer is: Anyone who bothers to argue with someone who denies them the pursuit of happiness gives that person the right to do so. By arguing the point you are admitting/recognizing their right to oppose you. If your stance is that they have no right to oppose you, then you need not argue the point; you just figure a way to navigate the system or go around the system.
Now, lets see how ridiculous you sound when you say that gays have never been able to find an ounce of happiness because they don't have a piece of paper that says that they are legally married. What a bunch of crap. Do you actually expect me to believe that a piece of paper is going to magically make them find happiness? Come on.
Gays have been living together, spending the rest of their lives together, loving each other, expressing their love for each other in front of friends and family for ages. If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make things any different, think again. Those people who hate gays will always hate gays regardless of this piece of paper you so desperately want.
Honestly...what makes the most sense is option 3. Then the government has nothing to do with religious/philosophical problems. They would be neutral, which is how it should be. Then whichever churches/ship captains/etc. are willing to marry gay people can do so, and those who don't want to don't have to(I'm sure people will be able to find a venue--there's enough support even in some churches that people can find someone to marry them. And they can always go to the courthouse if all else fails). Then gay people can be married, have equality before the law, and conservatives can still believe in their own definition of marriage. But mostly, it makes sense because the government stays neutral in what is a personal/religious/philosophical issue.
I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3. :D
I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3.
1) Pragmatism. D'you have any idea how many state and federal laws make specific reference to "marriage"? LOTS. Adoption laws, inheritance laws, property laws, credit-and-debt laws, health decision and power-of-attorney laws, insurance benefits laws, tort laws, bankruptcy laws . . . the list goes on, interminably.
2) Married people. If you think they squawk about the gays next door wanting to get married, wait until the government strolls in and tells them that NOBODY is legally "married."
3) Regulation of the family unit. E.g., we don't allow ten-year-olds to get "married" and we don't allow polygamous marriage either. If we separate out "marriage" as an exclusively religious institution on which states cannot intrude, now suddenly we are in a world of hurt with fringe groups who want to "marry" a pre-adolescent harem. Your religion might say it's hunky-dory to have sex with fourteen nine-year-olds, but public policy says something quite different. If the state can still regulate "marriage" but at the same time "marriage" has no legal force, then "marriage" is meaningless. If the state can't regulate it, then we end up reversing child-protective laws by about 400 years.
1) These documents are in computers. You do a search and replace. Done.
2) Married people will still be married. Their paper work doesn't even have to be re-issued. Everyone will be notified that if it's a legal piece of paper and it says "married" then just cross it out and replace it with civil union when it becomes necessary. Done.
3) OK, so let me get this straight. You claim that there are no fringe groups doing hunky-dory stuff right now in the U.S. and the reason is because the government regulates it and if we replace the world "marriage" with the words "civil union" then the government would no longer be able to regulate it. Is that right? Wow! ;)
1) Requires specific acts of state and federal legislatures. And, those documents are not all centrally stored in one archive -- they are reproduced in countless books and databases across the country. AND, case law uses the same word ("marriage") and relies on the statutes that use the word "marriage." So no, you can't just search-and-replace.
2) You generally can't just make hand-corrections on documents either. You could perhaps issue every married couple a new document that says "civil union," but that would certainly not stop married couples from screaming "I don't want to be in a 'civil union', I was married and I want to stay married."
3) No, I am arguing that there is absolutely no point in inventing a whole new legalism to replace an already-existing and perfectly good one. There is no point at all in creating a whole new term for a binding, loving commitment between two adult sexual partners. We have a word for that and it's "marriage." If "marriage" is reduced to a religious ceremony with no legal force, it becomes sort of superfluous. We don't need whole new terminology, we just need to let gay people friggin' get married.
1. There no specific act that is required. We just say from now on we just use the words "civil union." If a particular (old) document uses the word "marriage" no one would "freak out" we just accept the fact that what is meant is "civil union" and move on. For those who are more of the argumentative type, we can re-issue that specific document with the correct wording. Done.
2. You obviously have never dealt with legal documents. All that is required is to cross the old word out, write in the correct word and initial it. Married couple would still be married in the eyes of the church, friends and family. In the eyes of the law, it is a civil union. In spite of your objections, since "the fight for gay marriage" has not been going so well, I say we give this solution a chance.
3. But we do need a new term. Why? Because "the fight for gay marriage" has not been going so well. It's like seeing people bash their heads against a wall. It ain't going well. Time to try a new approach. Or do you like to bang your head against the wall? ;)
Your religion might say it's hunky-dory to have sex with fourteen nine-year-olds, but public policy says something quite different. If the state can still regulate "marriage" but at the same time "marriage" has no legal force, then "marriage" is meaningless.
Just because my religion says that does not make it legal now, nor would it later. Even if someone was to get religously married to an 11 year old, they would still be in violation of the law by having sex with them. How is this relevant? The point is that marriage is something that belongs in churches. NOT the legal system. What the church should not have any legal standing in court. Just because it is not considered a marriage in the law, does not mean it would be ok for a parent to marry off their child to a stranger underage. That act is covered by numerous other laws. How is your argument even relevant?
That's my whole point. If there is NO overlap between religious "marriages" and legal "civil unions," then the whole concept of "marriage" becomes pretty much pointless. If your church says "you're married" and that has no legal force and can in fact still be prohibited by law, what on earth is the point of having a religious marriage? It would be entirely useless, as it would have no legal analogue. As I said before, "If the state can still regulate 'marriage' but at the same time 'marriage' has no legal force, then 'marriage' is meaningless. If the state can't regulate it, then we end up reversing child-protective laws by about 400 years."
We have a perfectly good word for a binding, loving commitment between two adult sexual partners, and the word is "marriage." It's just silly to try to replace it with a whole new word that means the exact same thing and renders the word "marriage" meaningless.