Log in

07 November 2006 @ 08:06 pm
Gay Marriage vs Civil Unions  
So I was wondering where the members of this community sttand on gay marriage vs civil unions. It has been a big part of the elections in recent years. Personally I am against gay marriage. Now, before you all leave the community in droves let me exsplain. I believe that the legal term should be civil union and the religious term should be marriage. This way we are all equal under the eyes of the law, but religious groups can still have the marriage in the traditions they are used to without us steping on thier toes. My personal feelings are that we want equal rights as our hetero friends. We should not be pickey on how it is done. With this method all can be well. That is my thought

Now, i want to get everyones opinion on this matter. I created a poll with some answers that I hope will represent that usual opinions of people. Please take part.

Gay Marriage vs. Civil Unions
Current Location: Henderson,NV
Current Mood: boredbored
Current Music: Carly Simon: You're So Vain
Mlong_awakenings on November 8th, 2006 04:11 am (UTC)
That's EXACTLY what I think and what I brought up in a discussion somewhere else. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way.
tonys_fgd on November 8th, 2006 05:30 pm (UTC)
Marriage - a religious ideal where two souls become one - I think this should be available to everyone who wants a religious service

Civil Union - a secular or non-mainstream religious marriage that again should be available to everyone
sage_of_musicsage_of_music on November 10th, 2006 02:32 am (UTC)
The thing is about this whole issue, is that we're only focusing on "Christian" marraige, Marraige, by definition is the union of 2 people, and is used in MANY religions, not just Christian.

So..can you really jusitfy a yes or no towards gay "marraige" if the term itself contains so many layers and rewrites? If you only look at it from an anti-gay christian perspective?

In ancient times, marraiges were practiced for men and women that were gay and lesbians....I'm not sure if this debate is truly valid if we only consider the norm and term of today, when in 30 years it could drastiaclly changed.

An example?

In the late 1500's, the term "Brave" actually meant to be a coward, and the term "Nice" meant awful.

Of course today these 2 terms have very different meanings.

So does Marriage, from the beginning of Civilization to present day. Marraige changed from a bond between 2 people, to a 'religious' bond between a man and a women.

The romans practiced marraige between 2 men (though not 2 women, we were not people but objects) Aboriginals practiced marraiges between people who were "two-spirited", in ancient China men were married to younger boys to teach them ways of their people.

So taking the history of marraige in its ENTIRITY...what is the true argument?
Adamonevos on November 17th, 2006 05:10 am (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in a lot of places, "civil unions" will arrive before "marriage" for us. I'm fine with that. Doesn't mean I'll settle for a "second-rate" categorization or remedy legally, just saying that that's the way things will progress before everyone is okay with us having "civil unions" and then finally pass "marriage," if it's still recognized as a legal term at that point in time. If it happens faster, though, that's fine with me too.

I totally understand what you're saying about your stance on "civil union" being the legal norm, too. If all were perfect, there would be a clear distinction between the legal and religious versions of the institution.
scotty2naughty on December 11th, 2006 05:46 pm (UTC)
Never settle for second best. I'm no second class citizen.