Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Europe


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 18th, 2007, 11:58 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 134
A perspective from Europe

What is the fuss over gay marriage? Is it the idea of same sex union, or is it the term 'marriage'?



In the UK we have 'civil partnerships' for gay couples which, to the best of my knowledge, gives the same rights and has the same legal status as marriage while acknowledging that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That seems acceptable to just about most rational people.
George is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:05 PM   #2
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
What is the fuss over gay marriage? Is it the idea of same sex union, or is it the term 'marriage'?



In the UK we have 'civil partnerships' for gay couples which, to the best of my knowledge, gives the same rights and has the same legal status as marriage while acknowledging that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That seems acceptable to just about most rational people.




I agree.



The fight over homosexual marriage is really about the acceptability and normalisation of homosexual behaviour.



I like that Gandhi quote btw
garysher is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:05 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
What is the fuss over gay marriage? Is it the idea of same sex union, or is it the term 'marriage'?



In the UK we have 'civil partnerships' for gay couples which, to the best of my knowledge, gives the same rights and has the same legal status as marriage while acknowledging that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That seems acceptable to just about most rational people.


I think in the US the primary "hang up" is with application of the term "marriage."



However, there is a considerable amount of discussion about the legal contract of "civil unions" since they don't, for the most part, give the same rights and legal status to homosexuals as "marriages" give to heterosexuals...especially at the federal level.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 134
You see, the situation in the UK, which I support absolutely, is that homosexuality is acceptable and normal, but that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore allow gay couples to have the same status and legal rights, but not a marriage.



It actually works very well because most people (myself included) refer to such couples as 'married' but the law allows for the history and sanctity of marriage.
George is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
Here's something else.



Why not call all partnerships 'unions' regardless of gender, then if a man and a woman want to have a marriage blessed by their religion, then they can do that.



Unions, regardless of the sexuality of the couples, are equal under the law. They are performed by a licensed person and filed with the county as a union certificate.
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Here's something else.



Why not call all partnerships 'unions' regardless of gender, then if a man and a woman want to have a marriage blessed by their religion, then they can do that.



Unions, regardless of the sexuality of the couples, are equal under the law. They are performed by a licensed person and filed with the county as a union certificate.






I agree with you 100%.



There are plenty of countries where religious weddings have no legal status. I know my cousin 'married' twice in Italy, the first was the legal documentation which is all fairly low key and simply a matter of paperwork. From that point he was legally married although the church ceremony was several days later and for him personally that was his marriage, the first part was merely the formalities.
George is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:29 PM   #7
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Here's something else.



Why not call all partnerships 'unions' regardless of gender, then if a man and a woman want to have a marriage blessed by their religion, then they can do that.



Unions, regardless of the sexuality of the couples, are equal under the law. They are performed by a licensed person and filed with the county as a union certificate.




DING DING DING DING!!! We have logic ladies and gentlemen. I agree completely Knot_E.



Here in America we can't differentiate between marriage and civil unions because that would mean our government is favoring a relgious view, which is not acceptable in a secular system.



I am for calling them all civil unions in the eyes of our government and letting churches decide who they want to "marry".
hevusa is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:32 PM   #8
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
DING DING DING DING!!! We have logic ladies and gentlemen. I agree completely Knot_E.



Here in America we can't differentiate between marriage and civil union s because that would mean our government is favoring a relgious view,

>>>



Why?











which is not acceptable in a secular system.



I am for calling them all civil unions in the eyes of our government and letting churches decide who they want to "marry".


You are trying to blur the differences between an opposite sex couple and two homosexuals
garysher is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:34 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
akuma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Here's something else.



Why not call all partnerships 'unions' regardless of gender, then if a man and a woman want to have a marriage blessed by their religion, then they can do that.



Unions, regardless of the sexuality of the couples, are equal under the law. They are performed by a licensed person and filed with the county as a union certificate.


This is an idea I have always liked.
akuma is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:42 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
You see, the situation in the UK, which I support absolutely, is that homosexuality is acceptable and normal, but that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore allow gay couples to have the same status and legal rights, but not a marriage.



It actually works very well because most people (myself included) refer to such couples as 'married' but the law allows for the history and sanctity of marriage.


I believe if "civil unions" were the legal equivalent to "marriages" in the US, at both the state and federal levels, then this situation would likely be acceptable to many people in the US.



However, they aren't the same for the most part, legally speaking, at either the federal or state level.



(I believe this situation also highlights the differences between the UK and US government structures...being that states have a certain level of autonomy in the US.)
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:45 PM   #11
Retired
 
hevusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher

You are trying to blur the differences between an opposite sex couple and two homosexuals


No, I am trying make our society stronger by supporting partnerships that are already occuring anyway.
hevusa is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:46 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector
I believe if "civil unions" were the legal equivalent to "marriages" in the US, at both the state and federal levels, then this situation would likely be acceptable to many people in the US.



However, they aren't the same for the most part, legally speaking, at either the federal or state level.



(I believe this situation also highlights the differences between the UK and US government structures...being that states have a certain level of autonomy in the US.)






What sort of differences? Stuff like pension rights, inheritance, financial things?
George is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:47 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
No, I am trying make our society stronger.


Don't sweat it, hev. Gary always sees things blurry.



I think it's all the stout he drinks.
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:48 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
What sort of differences? Stuff like pension rights, inheritance, financial things?


Exactly.



Social Security benefits, survivor rights, rights of partners to decide what to do if their partner is in the hospital, child custody. All those things are denied to same sex couples in the US because they can't 'marry'.
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:49 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
You see, the situation in the UK, which I support absolutely, is that homosexuality is acceptable and normal, but that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore allow gay couples to have the same status and legal rights, but not a marriage.



It actually works very well because most people (myself included) refer to such couples as 'married' but the law allows for the history and sanctity of marriage.




The problem with civil unions is that there are hundreds of rights and privileges conveyed by "marriage". It has already been demonstrated that there are those prepared to challenge rights conveyed by civil unions based on the fact that they are not marriages.



It just seems illogical to pass laws that force couples to have to go to court to obtain the rights that those laws are supposed to convey.

CrazyFlamingos is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 12:53 PM   #16
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Don't sweat it, hev. Gary always sees things blurry.



I think it's all the stout he drinks.


highway80west is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 01:09 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Exactly.



Social Security benefits, survivor rights, rights of partners to decide what to do if their partner is in the hospital, child custody. All those things are denied to same sex couples in the US because they can't 'marry'.




See the people who are so small minded that they put these obstacles in front of gay couples are just harming their own position. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that there should be an EQUAL legal status for gay couples. If stupid bigots want to block this then I would rather extend marriage to gay couples than prevent them attaining equality.
George is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 01:14 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Don't sweat it, hev. Gary always sees things blurry.



I think it's all the stout he drinks.




Don't knock Guinness. It's GOOD!
Catus Felidae is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 01:16 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
See the people who are so small minded that they put these obstacles in front of gay couples are just harming their own position. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that there should be an EQUAL legal status for gay couples. If stupid bigots want to block this then I would rather extend marriage to gay couples than prevent them attaining equality.


Ahh...a breath of fresh air!



In other words, I fully agree with what you said.



(As far as actual differences in legal status, I am sure that homosexuals on this forum will be more than happy to list them for you.)
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 18th, 2007, 01:17 PM   #20
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,113
IMHO homosexuality is "acceptable" but not "normal". I have no problem with homosexual couples being granted the rights of married hetero couples, but calling that union a "marriage"is what I can never agree with. "Marriage" should represent the orientation that we see that humans are supposed to couple.
fxashun is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Europe

Tags
europe, perspective


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Little Pandemic Perspective, If You Please, Joe The Bare Knuckled Pundit Political Talk 3 May 6th, 2009 02:20 AM
An American Perspective............ Mags Crime and Punishment 4 May 14th, 2007 04:33 PM
9/11 From a Religous Perspective billybobama Religion 98 May 8th, 2007 10:34 AM
Let's Put Things In Perspective alias Political Talk 0 November 11th, 2006 11:43 AM
Lets Put Terrorism in Perspective... tadpole256 Warfare 25 August 25th, 2005 02:05 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.