Will you settle for "civil unions"?

[awediot]

Will you personally settle for legal civil unions, or will you insist we be deemed as "married" in a religious context?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by awediot

Will you personally settle for legal civil unions, or will you insist we be deemed as "married" in a religious context?

Seems like you have your categories a little askew awediot. The choices as I understand it are:

a. nothing -- gay couples have to just shack up together.
b. civil unions which have some or many of the benefits of straight marriage
c. or civil marriage in which same sex marriages are on an equal footing with Straight marriages.

married in a religious context is a matter for each religion to figure out for itself. if you go to an MCC church or a UCC church you can have a religious marriage right now.

I used to be an advocate for civil Unions but now I believe that true justice will only be achieved when the legal institution of marriage is open to all persons.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Will you personally settle for legal civil unions, or will you insist we be deemed as "married" in a religious context?

Not settling for 'civil marriage' for the simple fact that separate is NOT equal. And this has NOTHING to do with being married in a religious context. Marriage is acivil matter in this country, even though conservatives think otherwise. The state does NOT confer marriage in a religious context. Nor does it promote religion.

The cat is out of the bag awediot. We aren't going 'back' to the idea of civil unions. Just ask all the couples who had them in New Jersey and still can't get the benefits the state says they have.

Let's put it this way: do you think most straight American's would sign up civil unions if they could?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Seems like you have your categories a little askew awediot. The choices as I understand it are:

a. nothing -- gay couples have to just shack up together.
b. civil unions which have some or many of the benefits of straight marriage
c. or civil marriage in which same sex marriages are on an equal footing with Straight marriages.

married in a religious context is a matter for each religion to figure out for itself. if you go to an MCC church or a UCC church you can have a religious marriage right now.

I used to be an advocate for civil Unions but now I believe that true justice will only be achieved when the legal institution of marriage is open to all persons.

hey u-dog...

It seems contradictory to state both that the religious aspect is up to any particular church, but you will settle for nothing less than being recognized as "married"... (the power a religious "church" has to perform and recognize a secular contract is admittedly weird and not even biblical)...But I guess I'm curious where we are willing to declare victory. Is it in the secular world, or must churches (fundamental, mainstream) be "brought around" to our way of thinking and made to marry us?

[awediot]

How goes Daniel? -hope your swell and all that

Originally Posted by Daniel

Not settling for 'civil marriage' for the simple fact that separate is NOT equal. And this has NOTHING to do with being married in a religious context. Marriage is acivil matter in this country, even though conservatives think otherwise. The state does NOT confer marriage in a religious context. Nor does it promote religion.

The cat is out of the bag awediot. We aren't going 'back' to the idea of civil unions. Just ask all the couples who had them in New Jersey and still can't get the benefits the state says they have.

Do you think if a church (mainstream) called them married, that would change?

Let's put it this way: do you think most straight American's would sign up civil unions if they could?

uh...sorta strawmanny argument... Obviously, no.

[tdogg]

Civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage, at least in the real world. Yes, there are folks that equate it because they are unable to think outside the boundaries of their religion.

I was married in September, legally, in an outdoor wedding by a MCC minister. Married in every way, yet church had nothing to do with it. We allowed God to be a small part in our wedding, but we already understood that God considered us life partners and as good as married spiritually. It was the legal marriage we sought at that time, including all the rights privileges, protections and responsibilities that come along with legal marriage.

My answer to this question would be that nothing less than equality is acceptable.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage, at least in the real world. Yes, there are folks that equate it because they are unable to think outside the boundaries of their religion.

I was married in September, legally, in an outdoor wedding by a MCC minister. Married in every way, yet church had nothing to do with it. We allowed God to be a small part in our wedding, but we already understood that God considered us life partners and as good as married spiritually. It was the legal marriage we sought at that time, including all the rights privileges, protections and responsibilities that come along with legal marriage.

My answer to this question would be that nothing less than equality is acceptable.

Congratulations! -you scared me with the "we allowed God to be a small part...", but the "he already understands..." makes perfect, beautiful sense... I hope happiness and blessings an your new commitment...


-I have to wonder just what it is we want to be equal with? The mainstream, bigoted and sick society that happens to have power right now? It feels like so many are fighting hard be invited aboard a sinking ship... Personally, if I've got the same legal rights, benefits and protection under the secular law, and am right with God, screw their acceptance... We'll always be weird and abnormal. I find strength in it.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

How goes Daniel? -hope your swell and all that

Do you think if a church (mainstream) called them married, that would change?

Am well...thanks for asking. How are you?

No. I do not think it would change. What has to change is the law.

Gay people don't need religion to be married. And there are plenty of straight people who forgo the religious element. And no one bars them from being married. Straight conservatives don't own the word. It's that simple really. And their perpetuating the belief that 'God' invented marriage is right up there with Creationism. As it is, there a heck of a lot more biological data regarding same-sex sexuality than there is for the earth being made in 7 days and man existing along side dinosaurs.

Really- who do they think they are kidding? The facts are stacked against their view. As is the 'evolution' of our society. Young people really don't care about this issue.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by awediot

-I have to wonder just what it is we want to be equal with? The mainstream, bigoted and sick society that happens to have power right now? It feels like so many are fighting hard be invited aboard a sinking ship... Personally, if I've got the same legal rights, benefits and protection under the secular law, and am right with God, screw their acceptance... We'll always be weird and abnormal. I find strength in it.

There are some people who, while they don't oppose marriage equality, totally agree with you: they have no personal desire to get married specifically because they think the institution is too broken to fix. Not sure where I stand personally, but yeah, you're right.

As it stands, if you're gay, then "personally", you DONT have the same legal rights, benefits, and protetion under the secular law. And if they make this new thing called "civil union" or "gayrriage" or whatever they want to call it that's NOT "marriage", but keep the (again, to stress, LEGAL) term "marriage" for straight people, that's setting up a "separate but equal" scenario which our country has already proven can't work. Even if the two were perfectly equal at the start, every time some change is made to tax law or child custody law or any other aspect of "marriage", people are going to have to fight for the gay version all over again. Because changing one wouldn't change the other because they're not the same. Ultimately, the only reasons I've heard for proposing two separate institutions boil down to the fact that some people think that their relationships and their lives are superior, and that they deserve some special recognition for not being gay.

Would I settle for "civil unions" if straight relationships were also referred to, in civil law, "civil unions"? Sure, but I don't think that'll happen in this country (cause then the people who said we want to "redefine marriage" would technically be right).

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Am well...thanks for asking. How are you?

No. I do not think it would change. What has to change is the law.

Gay people don't need religion to be married. And there are plenty of straight people who forgo the religious element. And no one bars them from being married. Straight conservatives don't own the word. It's that simple really. And their perpetuating the belief that 'God' invented marriage is right up there with Creationism. As it is, here a heck of a lot more biological data regarding same-sex sexuality than there is for the earth being made in 7 days and that man existed along side dinosaurs.

Really- who do they think they are kidding? The facts are stacked against their view. As is the 'evolution' of our society. Young people really don't care about this issue.

I agree it is just a matter of time, and as long as the law changes, THE LAW as supposedly handed down from on high...well, we can deal with as individuals (or legal couples one day soon),...

~we can discuss the other stuff later

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

I agree it is just a matter of time, and as long as the law changes, THE LAW as supposedly handed down from on high...well, we can deal with as individuals (or legal couples one day soon),...

~we can discuss the other stuff later

That higher law? Nice idea. Fortunately, we have separation of church and state, which has nothing to do with putting the 10 commandments in every town square.

I think conservatives are really pissed off because the supremes struck down sodomy laws. However, they conveniently forget that those same laws applied to them.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

That higher law? Nice idea. Fortunately, we have separation of church and state, which has nothing to do with putting the 10 commandments in every town square.

I think conservatives are really pissed off because the supremes struck down sodomy laws. However, they conveniently forget that those same laws applied to them.

Just wait until we start recruiting from the classrooms

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Just wait until we start recruiting from the classrooms

Oh...they hand out tupperware for each person you've recruited. Didn't you get the memo? I have a whole set.

Did you catch this a few days ago?

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/pat...-from-men.html

Dan Savage puts things nicely.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Alecto

There are some people who, while they don't oppose marriage equality, totally agree with you: they have no personal desire to get married specifically because they think the institution is too broken to fix. Not sure where I stand personally, but yeah, you're right.

It's a fine line, especially for gay Christians... My hope does not lie in this world, and I hold little faith in my fellow man, but I need them, and I care about them, and am forced to comply with those who have power over me... I don't expect even getting all we want from this secular society will give us the happiness we seek, and it disturbs me to see spiritual people who seem to be putting such hope in a ratty, temporal basket.

As it stands, if you're gay, then "personally", you DONT have the same legal rights, benefits, and protetion under the secular law. And if they make this new thing called "civil union" or "gayrriage" or whatever they want to call it that's NOT "marriage", but keep the (again, to stress, LEGAL) term "marriage" for straight people, that's setting up a "separate but equal" scenario which our country has already proven can't work. Even if the two were perfectly equal at the start, every time some change is made to tax law or child custody law or any other aspect of "marriage", people are going to have to fight for the gay version all over again. Because changing one wouldn't change the other because they're not the same. Ultimately, the only reasons I've heard for proposing two separate institutions boil down to the fact that some people think that their relationships and their lives are superior, and that they deserve some special recognition for not being gay.

We will NEVER eliminate that "separate but equal" mentality. We are oddballs by nature. No law will change that... People will ALWAYS find some group to feel superior to. Look at the superiority (deserved or not) many here feel toward the evil fundie... Are we trying to change laws, or human nature?

Would I settle for "civil unions" if straight relationships were also referred to, in civil law, "civil unions"? Sure, but I don't think that'll happen in this country (cause then the people who said we want to "redefine marriage" would technically be right).

We DO want to redefine marriage.

We can't underestimate what we are demanding... I'm all for equality and respectful treatment, but I can't delude myself that I will probably have to settle for being tolerated by the normal majority who's power, not opinion, is what must matter to me.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Oh...they hand out tupperware for each person you've recruited. Didn't you get the memo? I have a whole set.

Did you catch this a few days ago?

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/pat...-from-men.html

Dan Savage puts things nicely.

Oh Lordy... Right up there with Dobson's (ex?) right hand man claiming kids were gay because daddy didn't shower with them (sorry ladies, there's probably something equally perverse for you to google out there, if you want to)...

As a Christian, it tears me up to see such asinine lack of common sense come from the mouths of "our leaders"... Good thing we were warned about it a long time ago.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

It's a fine line, especially for gay Christians... My hope does not lie in this world, and I hold little faith in my fellow man, but I need them, and I care about them, and am forced to comply with those who have power over me... I don't expect even getting all we want from this secular society will give us the happiness we seek, and it disturbs me to see spiritual people who seem to be putting such hope in a ratty, temporal basket.

We will NEVER eliminate that "separate but equal" mentality. We are oddballs by nature. No law will change that... People will ALWAYS find some group to feel superior to. Look at the superiority (deserved or not) many here feel toward the evil fundie... Are we trying to change laws, or human nature?

We DO want to redefine marriage.

We can't underestimate what we are demanding... I'm all for equality and respectful treatment, but I can't delude myself that I will probably have to settle for being tolerated by the normal majority who's power, not opinion, is what must matter to me.

1) Who said anything about finding peace and enlightenment in this world or marriage for that matter? How about we keep the earthly and the spiritual matters separate? We're talking about equal rights here. An even playing field.

2) If you think we won't change the way people see how separate is not equal, then maybe you should just stay in your seat at the back of the bus. And why is it that you think that 'they' have power over you? There is a good saying: we teach people how to treat us. And gay people are standing up for themselves. The kind of declaration you've made may be true insofar in that human nature seem to have a tribal fear of the 'other', but if you listen to this kind of thinking the only result will be in-action.

The Dalai Lama said something very interesting a number of years ago. He noted that Buddhist's, because of their belief in karma, can be prone to non-action, that is, they don't concern themselves with social justice matters ie care of the poor etc, where-as, Catholics have a different belief, and have very active sense of charity. What I hear him saying is that the believes we hold affect the way we are in the world.

Slavery was ended in the mid 19th century and it took another 100 years before there was civil rights (and blacks STILL are struggling). I don't expect that everyone is going to jumping for joy once DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, but progress is just that: progress. You want real happiness? Sit on a cushion. Mediate. Say the Jesus Prayer.

We're lucky to be living. And I agree with the Buddhists who teach that having compassion for one's self and others is the key to being happy. Marriage? It's a great perk.

3) We aren't changing marriage. Go read Boswell if you don't believe me. It's titled Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.a...index-bos.html

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

1) Who said anything about finding peace and enlightenment in this world or marriage for that matter? How about we keep the earthly and the spiritual matters separate? We're talking about equal rights here. An even playing field.

Are we? Do you really think that distinction is so clear in all homosexuals eyes? -There are a lot of people who have yet to see a clear line between worldly acceptance and finding peace with "God"... My question is about if this is just a civil rights issue, or something more, and just what "we" think being granted worldly equality will validate.

2) If you think we won't change the way people see how separate is not equal, then maybe you should just stay in your seat at the back of the bus. And why is it that you think that 'they' have power over you? There is a good saying: we teach people how to treat us. And gay people are standing up for themselves. The kind of declaration you've made may be true insofar in that human nature seems to have a fear of the 'other', but if you listen to this kind of thinking the only result will be in-action.

It isn't an all or nothing proposition and we may be setting ourselves up for a big fall if we think it is.

The Dalai Lama said something very interesting a number of years ago. He noted that Buddhist's, because of their belief in karma, can be prone to non-action, that is, they don't concern themselves with social justice matters ie care of the poor etc, where-as, Catholics have a different belief, and have very active sense of charity. What I hear him saying is that the believes we hold affect the way we are in the world.

Very true.

Slavery was ended in the mid 19th century and it took another 100 years before there was civil rights (and blacks STILL are struggling). I don't expect that everyone is going to jumping for joy once DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, but progress is just that: progress. You want real happiness? Sit on a cushion. Mediate. Say the Jesus Prayer.

I want joy... happiness is fleetingand can be got from a bottle

We're lucky to be living. And I agree with the Buddhists who teach that having compassion for one's self and others is the key to being happy. Marriage? It's a great perk.

3) We aren't changing marriage. Go read Boswell if you don't believe me. It's titled Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.a...index-bos.html

Overall, the uniting of one male and one female has been the norm (and yes there as some anomalous example). We see it in nature as the archetype, biological norm... Such is life. If we refuse to admit that we are demanding that an "atypical" relationship become more respected, than we're just kidding ourselves. It will never be accepted as the norm.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Are we? Do you really think that distinction is so clear in all homosexuals eyes? -There are a lot of people who have yet to see a clear line between worldly acceptance and finding peace with "God"... My question is about if this is just a civil rights issue, or something more, and just what "we" think being granted worldly equality will validate.

It isn't an all or nothing proposition and we may be setting ourselves up for a big fall if we think it is.

Very true.

I want joy... happiness is fleetingand can be got from a bottle

Overall, the uniting of one male and one female has been the norm (and yes there as some anomalous example). We see it in nature as the archetype, biological norm... Such is life. If we refuse to admit that we are demanding that an "atypical" relationship become more respected, than we're just kidding ourselves. It will never be accepted as the norm.

What's the scripture?

Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..... etc etc.

I think a LOT more gay people understand what is at stake here as well as the context is which gay marriage is taking place that you might suppose. That's why they are fighting so hard. It's about having civil rights. Anything on top of that is gravy.

You might also remember that many gay people don't believe in a deity. As such, they aren't concerning themselves with winning their crown in heaven. Do they want happiness now? Or course the do! And who the hell doesn't? Everyone wants happiness. Marriage doesn't confer that upon gay people any more than it does upon straight people.

You keep harping about the 'norm' while forgetting that same-sex sexuality is just as much a part of the 'norm' as well, biologically speaking. Every generation has gay people in it. What's not normal about that?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

What's the scripture?

Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..... etc etc.

I'll let a fundi answer that... I think we are by far more obsessed with temporal body parts than God is.

I think a LOT more gay people understand what is at stake here as well as the context is which gay marriage is taking place that you might suppose. That's why they are fighting so hard. It's about having civil rights. Anything on top of that is gravy.

Once granted equal status under the law, is having your relationship labeled a "marriage" critical, or gravy?

You might also remember that many gay people don't believe in a deity. As such, they aren't concerning themselves with winning their crown in heaven. Do they want happiness now? Or course the do! And who the hell doesn't? Everyone wants happiness. Marriage doesn't confer that upon gay people any more than it does upon straight people.

Does the word?

You keep harping about the 'norm' while forgetting that same-sex sexuality is just as much a part of the 'norm' as well, biologically speaking. Every generation has gay people in it. What's not normal about that?

I mean the usual, the status quo, the average...and we ain't it. That is a battle for fools.

[Daniel]

How about we back up here a bit?

I am married. Married in Canada actually. And the city and state that I live in recognizes legal gay marriage. It doesn't marry gay people as yet, but it will soon enough.

Do I need a label to tell me that I am OK in the eyes of society and God? No. I don't. I'm not looking for validation. But I am looking for the means to be able to take care of the person that I love.

The word 'marriage' is not a magic wand for acceptance. However, civil union is not marriage.

Why is it that straight people don't want civil unions for themselves?