Should the gov bypass the religious right and remove the word
By replacing the word "marriage" with the words "Civil Union," same sex couples will attain the same rights as married couples.
Yes, because...
Side Score: 18
|
 |
No, because...
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
yes, in that, the government shouldn't be controlling a religious institution like marriage. this is basically what i've been talking about since the beginning of this debate. make it all civil unions. marriage we can leave to the churches, since it's now about love and not about benefits :) Side: Yes, because...
2
points
I hate this topic - I can clearly see both sides as I straddle the fence. I do believe that the solution is a lot more simple that what we're making of it. Maybe it is beyond the reach of government. Maybe it should be left to individual churches to handle the ceremony part. This video is a great perspective tool. Click on view trailer. Side: Yes, because...
2
points
Same sex couples should just bypass the religious right and be done with it. Marriage should not be a legal institution, It should be a religious institution. That would allow for further separation of church and state. Also, since anyone can start a religion, same sex couples could start their own religion and perform marriage ceremonies. Civil Unions would then become the legal institution (which could be granted to same sex couples) and then they would have everything they're asking for. Side: Yes, because...
Religions have things like baptism, communion, last rights, etc. These are all things done within the church that have absolutely no legal bearing on anything. As it should be with marriage. The idea that government has any say in anything concerning what is considered by those involved (at least in ceremony) a "holy" matrimony is just one of the backward riduculous things that we just accept because we're used to it, that makes people like me want to move into a cave, and just be done with humanity. Government should have no say in the actual marriage. Not only should government not recognize gay marriage, government should not recognize any marriage. There should be something like a civil union to recognize a couple that has decided to share finances, give hospital visitation rights, etc. That's fine. But it should be considered by the government as nothing more than a legal contract between two people. As such, any two people not only should, but constitutionaly have to be allowed to participate. Saying gay people cannot take part in that right is exactly the same as saying black people can't swim in the same pool as whites. It's evil, unconstitutional, and absolutely dumb. And "dumb" is not nearly strong enough an ajective to describe the people who actually truely believe gay people should not have this right. Side: holy matrimony
1
point
|
marriage is a deep rooted, traditional, religious based union of man&woman;under the creed "be fruitful & multiply". There should be a preservation of the sacred union of marriage. The troubling part of my stance is that in today's society many a marriage is not treated as a sacred union. Adultery & other violations of that union are a reality inside the Christian faith as well as outside of it. I believe that a special place should be carved out for same-sex unions or civil marriages. I do not believe that anyone should be denied basic rights like hospital visitation or health care insurance, simply because the person they love is of the same sex. The Christian Right claim to hate the sin but love the sinner, such judgment is hurtful to good people. Many of whom are truer to God's message that those who do the condemning. I know that my whole argument is what Prop 8 is all about. I know that it was passed. I do believe that there is a suitable solution within the confines of it's wording. It's just finding it. Side: No, because...
If we're going to debate it let us cast aside the social relativism that congregates around marriage and look at it for what it really is. Marriage is rooted in two simple principles and objectives, which are: transference of wealth & authority, and the expansion of familial holdings. Everything else (family values, morals, etc...the intangibilities) can be passed on without the intervention of an outside entity (in this case, state or the church). That's all it boils down to. A legal contract which achieves both. That's it. Nothing else. We've attached emotions and fanciful notions (such as "love") to it, but historically, that's what the "institution" of marriage functionally provides. Side: Yes, because...
3
points
Same sex couples should just bypass the religious right and be done with it. Marriage should not be a legal institution, It should be a religious institution. That would allow for further separation of church and state. Also, since anyone can start a religion, same sex couples could start their own religion and perform marriage ceremonies. Civil Unions would then become the legal institution (which could be granted to same sex couples) and then they would have everything they're asking for. Side: Yes, because...
1
point
The problem is not all about the religious right it's also about those that are ignorant and those that are moderate in their views. No couple needs to be married in a church but they do need to get married in front of a Justice of the Peace or anyone who has the civil credentials to perform such a ceremony and have it recognized as being legal. So far, and for all intents and purposes, we have termed this ceremony a "marriage" whether done by a minister, a J.P. or a ships captain. In order for a couple to enter into a state of "holy" matrimony the ceremony must be performed by a minister of the church, a Rabbi of the temple and so forth. Marriages and Civil Unions or any other name you wish to attach to it must be recognized as being one and the same under the law. It must have all of the laws protections, rights and responsibilities offered to everyone and anyone. A church wedding would be nice but it is not necessary at all. What matters most, outside of the couple being able to be joined together under the law, is that they enjoy the benefits of marriage just as a heterosexual couple does. That means they must have access to insurance without prejudice, have access to each others property without interference, write out their wills to benefit whomever they please without contest, have THE say in health care if one or the other becomes incapacitated, handle their financial affairs together and with no interference from families and a host of other things that naturally come with the territory. So, NO! Removing the word marriage is really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Removing the stigma is the most important thing and also the most difficult to achieve. We have to make a start in this and we have already achieved some successes. Remember that 15 years ago none of this would have been possible if the gay movement and its supporters didn't take an in-your-face stance and keep pushing for their human rights. It's not semantics that holds us back from having all we were or are meant to have. It's the mindlessness of prejudice and being different that does. If either the church or the law would stand with us, things will begin to change in this country. Either way, it will be a bittersweet success. Side: The Religious Right is WRONG
1
point
I'm not so sure about an in-your-face approach. To every action there's an equal opposing reaction. Same Sex marriage proponents out spent the religious right and the religious right won! That should tell you something. This is an up hill battle for same sex couples. Go around the mountain. Don't bash your head against a wall. Either way, same sex couples have time on their side. Eventually, they will win. Just as women got suffrage and slaves got freedom. The status quo tries to maintain it base but the minority groups keep on eroding that base. Like ocean waves crashing against a cliff. The meek will inherit the Earth because the other side will either get tired of fighting them off or they'll leave for mars or somewhere.... out there..... away from from all of this. Side: Yes, because...
1
point
I was asked, some years ago, to be the head of a gay organization that took the in-your-face approach. I didn't agree with it then but I also see the in-roads that have been made because some organizations continued to keep themselves extraordinarily vocal. Of course if this is done in a bad way it does nothing but alienate those you wish to have on your side. I said no to their request and I continue to be satisfied with the decision I made. I am not militant in any way and never have been. I take people on in a one on one basis and that works for me. I do understand militant behavior but am not a fan of it. As you say, eventually we will win but it will be a life long struggle. I never expected anything else knowing how this issue plays out on both the religious front and the purely prejudicial opinions of those who are not well educated or informed. We, too, shall overcome one day. Side: Yes, because...
|
