1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

How to Define Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Remixer, Nov 10, 2013.

  1. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    I'm hijacking @curiousbear 's comment in the PA thread, mostly because it is something my SO and I have similar feelings about and discussed multiple times this year. The opinion is as follows:

    Same-sex couples wishing to make their status permanent should be able to register their relationship as a Civil Union, and should be awarded full recognition and all legal benefits as an ordinary marriage. However, "marriage" itself should remain as an institution between men and women.

    Our opinion is based on the fact that in Australia, same-sex couples are already awarded the above within the framework of de facto relationships.

    A de facto relationship, for all intents and purposes, is considered equal to a legal marriage. The only difference being the process of receiving the de facto status.

    The de facto status of a couple is established when 1) living together for at least 2 years, 2) immediately upon having a child, 3) registered as de facto, or 4) there is a claim on property when breaking up.

    Application of the de facto status is the same for all couples, whether heterosexual or not.

    In such a scenario, we do not see the merit in the very vocal complaint by the LGBT community to change the laws in order to get rid of discrimination.

    We understand the same legal situation may not exist in North America, so I have no comment on that. However, EU countries have similar legal frameworks in place (e.g. the constantly-progressing Lebenspartnerschaften in Germany) that include same-sex couples.


    What are your thoughts on this issue?

    Do you believe Marriage should be universally applied to all couples? If so, why?

    What are your arguments for or against the civil union system as a substitute to marriage?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    curiousbear recently posted the following, in Pointless Announcements. While I know same-sex marriage has been endlessly debated, I thought this was an interesting angle to discuss...

    Assuming that same-sex marriage is a legitimate institution, should it share the same name (i.e. marriage) as heterosexual couples?



     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Well that was great timing :D
     
  4. Spiritsoar

    Spiritsoar Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    New York
    It seems like we've tried "separate but equal" before. If I recall correctly, it was a bad idea then too.
     
    • Like Like x 7
  5. spindles

    spindles Very Tilted

    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Personally I don't see what the fuss with calling it "Marriage" is. This is the "religious" people in Australia saying "Hey 'Marriage' is OUR word - keep your hands off". As long as we aren't mandating that churches etc. *must* conduct such services then this is purely a governmental decision.

    How is letting gay and lesbians marry hurting anyone, especially as we already give them de facto rights?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. arkana

    arkana Very Tilted

    Location:
    canada
    FFS, why do heterosexuals waste their time trying to define marriage to the exclusion of homosexuals? How does it affect them exactly??
     
    • Like Like x 9
  7. whoknewhawtwife Vertical

    Location:
    USA
    Just wanted to post a quick temp reading into the atmosphere while I have a moment. Hope to expand later.

    My views have evolved drastically over the past two years. I used to feel "marriage" should define a commitment between a male and female, regardless of moral/religious beliefs. I no longer believe this.

    In my view, "marriage" defines a spiritual (not necessarily "religious," but certainly transcending the mental/emotional) commitment between two people (regardless of gender, race, etc) who intend for the commitment to be permanent (whether or not it ultimately proves to be). My definition is based on motivation, commitment, and all the legal implications that go with it.

    Alternatively, anything other than this long-term spiritual commitment is, in my view, a "civil union."

    I don't think the law should assume the power to determine individuals' motivations and thereby sanction or not sanction a marriage/civil union. Of course, there has to be some legal definition for the law's function. But where I feel the law oversteps its authority is when it begins to judge a person's self-identity.

    I look around and see numerous couples who are "married," but do very little to honor their commitment. And I'm not talking about infidelity here, but more, viewing marriage as a weak contract on a vehicle they feel they're outgrowing or just don't care to drive anymore.

    I'm not condemning divorce at all. Folks gotta do what they feel is best. I just think, with all this rush to arms to protect "marriage," we should all take a deeper look at what we think marriage really is. It seems downright insane to "protect" the "sanctity" of something that is not that sacred anymore, but worse, trite.

    Just my humble one-person opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Likewise, what is the fuss with designating same-sex relationships as "marriage" by the members and supporters of the LGBT community?

    It seems hypocritical to refuse the status quo of an institution because the same rights and recognition are awarded under a substitute institution anyway, but then ignore that there is no justified need to impose a self-appointed goal of one group of people onto others. Especially when the imposing group has no real rationale outside of "we want it".

    Especially when even within the religious institution of marriage there are clauses that restrict the ability of certain types of heterosexual couples to get married (e.g. Catholics unable to marry if one of the parties is widowed; Muslims unable to marry a non-Jew/Christian/Muslim).

    Why give preferential treatment to same-sex couples, by removing provisions that restrict them from getting married, but then not extend the same privilege to heterosexual couples restricted from marriage by a similar set of provisions?

    Do we combat perceived discrimination with nepotism?



    Where do you derive your argument from that marriage is a purely governmental decision? Given that Civil Unions are a governmental system created purely as legal substitute to marriage (hi Denmark), how do you explain this creation of a substitute when, according to you, marriage was in the full domain of the government anyway?

    From the earliest recorded instances of marriage, such as these ones in ancient Sumer, where marriage was implemented as an economic and religious institution (whereupon oaths were made in the name of deities and with full reverence to them), the roots are clearly of a non-secular nature. People bemoan the "unjustful monopoly on marriage" and how we have no real claim to appropriate it in accordance with our religious tenets. No. By historical accounts and widespread present-day implementation of the concept of marriage, it is actually ours. The ones making the unjustified claim is the LGBT community.

    Why impose your desires unto other groups? What is to be gained? An unjustified, unilateral imposition will only serve to cause more friction with the religious sections of the affected societies and further the extremist views on the other side.

    Because there is an irrational perception of being discriminated against?
     
  9. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Okay, so let me get this straight: The only substantial difference between "civil union" (or whatever) and "marriage" is that the latter is religious?

    Why should it be up to the state to decide whether a marriage can occur between two people of the same gender? Shouldn't that be the jurisdiction of religious institutions?

    As it happens, there are states that forbid clergy from marrying gays and lesbians. Isn't that a form of religious persecution?

    Forbid same-sex marriage and civil unions = persecute gays and the religious
    Forbid same-sex marriage but permit civil unions = persecute the religious only
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    Location:
    The Windy City
    FWIW, I actually believe the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think that all unions registered with the government, hetero or same-sex, monogamous or otherwise, should be called civil unions, and that marriage should be purely a religious affair.

    Everyone should have the right to a civil union: hetero, same sex, trans, multiple partners, whatevs. Civil union, as a government matter, should be about establishing legal relationships, presumptions of heirship or next-of-kin rights, coparenting and custodial rights, joint property ownership, joint tax status if desired, etc. It should be a matter of filling out forms and registering to secure a license of union, and likewise the dissolution of them should be a matter of forms and registering dissolution, only resorting to court if necessary.

    Marriage should be left up to religions to define as they wish, to solemnize and dissolve as they wish, and to incorporate ideas of spirituality, love, God, etc., in whatever ways they choose. Nothing to do with the government. If couples (or whatever) wished, they could file for civil union at the same time they got married. But otherwise, marriage would have no recognition under secular law.

    Not only do I think hashing it out this way would undercut many of the objections that conservatives have raised to furthering LGBT rights (leaving them without objections other than naked homophobia, which doesn't play so well anymore), but I also think it would help us rebuild the sadly decaying wall that's supposed to separate religion and state.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    @Baraka_Guru

    Politics is a fine thing, isn't it?

    If you read my post again, I stated that marriage is not purely a governmental decision. Secular states, just as non-secular ones, exercise the right to restrict practices considered unacceptable by wider society.

    Given that religious institutions and their convents are what caused the legal ban of same-sex marriage in the first place, you don't really have a claim for religious persecution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2013
  12. Call it what you want. To be honest, the only difference between the colloquialized term "marriage" and whatever equivalent you want to call a "civil union", barring any religious undertones that may be injected in, is... well, in a perfect world, nothing.

    As long as every group has the same rights (or, at least, the ability to easily obtain said rights) as any other group, I'm happy.

    Now, if a Catholic same-gender couple wants to get married... well, sit and think about that one for a second. They'll have to take that one up with the Big Man upstairs.

    /narrow minded
     
  13. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    I'll start respecting the wants of the first religious institution that proves their god is real. Until then, the way I see it is people get a marriage license from the state, that happens to be presided over someone given authority to officiate, whether it's the clerk of the court or a religion peddler. The state calls it marriage. The State. So civil unions may offer the same benefits, but it doesn't have the same connotation. "Why are the negros so fussy? They get the back of the same damn bus. They get a water fountain too, uses the same city tap water. Just don't put your dirty paws on my white fountain". So either the state issues civil unions to everyone, or marriage to everyone. If a religion wants to discriminate, thats fine. We all expect religions to discriminate, they all have that as part of their tenets. But they don't own what it is called.
    --- merged: Nov 11, 2013 at 1:50 AM ---
    Bigotry cloaked in religion is still bigotry.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  14. FreeVerse

    FreeVerse Screw Tilted, I'm all the way upside down.

    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Had to speak up here, being an un-religious lesbian in a long term relationship.

    I have NO issue with Marriage being something pertaining to a religious union, and should be allowed or dis-allowed based on the individual religion and their choice to allow marriage within the confines of, and pertaining to the practitioners of their individual faith or version thereof. Were I to be someone that was a regular follower of "religion X", I would still believe that "Marriage" is something that to allow or not allow should be left in the hands of the governing bodies of the individual religions and/or their offshoots.
    Permission to hold a religious ceremony should be applied for within the confines of the religion or religions under which you would like to have your MARRIAGE formally solemnized and acknowledged, requirements to obtain this permission would be dictated by the individual religions themselves.
    BUT
    I would like to see EVERYONE wishing to form some kind of permanent living arrangement, including those that wish to also have a religious ceremony, have to apply for license to have, and then be required TO have, a CIVIL ceremony. For those not wishing a religious union - this should be conductible at whatever courthouse or governmental building they need to go to to obtain their license, or at a location and time of their choice, provided it is conducted by some form of "officer of the court"
    ie: judge, justice of the peace, mayor, governor, ship captain, ordained minister of some legally acknowledged religious order (for those wishing a religious union).

    The "required for all" civil license should be legal and binding, (once solemnized) and good enough to be taken as form of proof of union to be come eligible for their partner's health care, insurance, pension(s) life insurance benefits, survivors benefits of any kind, as well as for collection of Social Security benefits payable to someones "spouse" upon their death.

    You say you're gay and want to have a lovely "church" service - no problem. Hop online, become one of the many online ordained ministers - and form your own religion. Churches/chapels and the like do go up for sale every now and again - buy one - or build a new one - start your own religion - and invite all those that would follow your own particular interpretation of your "holy book" of choice, be it Torah, Koran, Bible, or Happy smurf meets cheese, to come and worship with you and your fellow followers of "new religion X" at the temple, mosque, chapel or fromagère you've just acquired, and let them know its available for weddings!.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany

    Much like your version of it.
     
  16. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    Don't try to make this personal. And don't ever call me a bigot for not accepting blind faith but asking for real proof. You're better than that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    There appears to be two levels to marriage today: Government and Religious.

    The government marriage is the legalization of the union.
    The religious marriage is the solemnization of union before your God(s).

    To my eyes, the government one is the easy solution. Leglize the process for all and call it whatever the heck you want (marriage, civil union, etc.), just make it all the same. It only matters that all are equal before the law.

    As for religious marriage, no church should be forced to performing marriages for any couple, regardless of their sex. Religions, by the definition are discriminating. They have rules and are exclusionary to those who don't follow their rules. They are not public institutions per se and as such should not be subject to laws enforcing things of this nature. If the people of a given church want to see change in their church, they need to change it from within or, and there is a long-standing history of this, splinter off.

    NOTE: My caveat to all of this is, in return for letting the churches/religions chart their own destinies, the religions need to let civil society do the same. Any Church/Religion found to be officially advocating against issues such as the government's legalization of same sex marriage should lose their status as a tax free entity. No exceptions.

    You should not be able to have your communion wafer and eat it too
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Much to do about nothing.

    Marriage/civil union if properly put in a modern state is simply a contractual agreement,
    with certain legal privileges between partners. (stated right to represent, etc...)

    The state, if it wants to be fair, should get rid of any benefit or disadvantage, of any status.
    And the legal privs are as agreed between the partners.

    If there is any deviation from said contract, then the other may dissolve the contract.

    And while it's a pain in the ass, having been through it, I understand why a government may give a year to dissolve,
    because it gives partners time to determine their true desire, get through the legal connections and complexities
    and so they aren't jumping in & out of a contract...as their emotions flux.

    So the moral of the story, think before you agree to a contract. (here being a marriage/union)

    The religious context should be left to the faith the partners belong to
    and even that could change...
    ...but there's still a legal contract.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2013
  19. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    But not all of the clergy folk agree with the ban. It's persecution even if some like it. It's persecution whether they like it or not.

    I'm sure some women believe no woman should be permitted in the workplace or be allowed to vote. That doesn't change the nature of denying these things to women.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. arkana

    arkana Very Tilted

    Location:
    canada
    Why does it matter to you that the rest of the world match the Australian legal codes? Why does any of this matter to you? Is it very important to you that all terms are clearly delineated?