Support NeoGAF

[impirius]

Don't get me wrong for a moment, my IDEAL world includes a government that only recognizes civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution, and within that sphere, I think people should be able to marry whomever they want to marry, provided they find a clergy progressive enough to do it.

Well, I wouldn't write off marriage as just a religious institution; despite the fallacious arguments that often surround it, the point about marriage being important (and even foundational) to society isn't off the mark. The fallacy, of course, usually occurs when someone takes that a step too far and says, "If we let those gays get married, society will crumble!"

Civil unions for homosexuals seem like the best way for everyone to meet in the middle. The meaning of the word marriage wouldn't have to be changed; it'd remain the same man-woman thing that it's been for the past few thousand years. All marriages and civil unions would be recognized equally by the government.

That sounds okay, right?

 

[videogamer]

Well, I wouldn't write off marriage as just a religious institution; despite the fallacious arguments that often surround it, the point about marriage being important (and even foundational) to society isn't off the mark. The fallacy, of course, usually occurs when someone takes that a step too far and says, "If we let those gays get married, society will crumble!"

Marriage is not necessarily just religious. It can also be cultural.

All marriages and civil unions would be recognized equally by the government.

That sounds okay, right?

That was essentially one of the arguments the state of California used to argue against gay marriages. What the judge said:
http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf

 

[impirius]

Marriage is not necessarily just religious. It can also be cultural.

I was trying to make that point above. Guess I shoulda tried harder. My excuse: it's late!

That was essentially one of the arguments the state of California used to argue against gay marriages. What the judge said:
http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf

I hadn't read this before. I fizzled out around page 20; I'll read through the whole thing tomorrow. The argument equating civil unions with "separate but equal" doesn't seem to be a good analogy; civil unions would be the exact same thing, only with a different name. Would xsarien's solution of having the government recognize everything as a "civil union" work?

 

[xsarien]

Well, I wouldn't write off marriage as just a religious institution; despite the fallacious arguments that often surround it, the point about marriage being important (and even foundational) to society isn't off the mark. The fallacy, of course, usually occurs when someone takes that a step too far and says, "If we let those gays get married, society will crumble!"

Civil unions for homosexuals seem like the best way for everyone to meet in the middle. The meaning of the word marriage wouldn't have to be changed; it'd remain the same man-woman thing that it's been for the past few thousand years. All marriages and civil unions would be recognized equally by the government.

That sounds okay, right?

No, it's not "okay" in that "civil unions" for one group, and "marriage" for others is - as Hammy pointed out - tantamount to seperate but equal.

The word "marriage" needs to be expunged from government wording regarding the issue. There's no rational reason for it to be there in the first place. Again, the government can and should call *everything* a civil union, and let the people involved attach whatever title they see fit. That way, couples, straight, gay, human/alien, whatever, can do what they please, within the rules of their religion if they decide to bring it into the equation.