|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Leave marraige to churches and make it their ceremony not even a public issue and everyone as a matter of law have a civil union.
This was a sugestion made by Livelonger and if I didn't word it right it's because I'm not real bright.
Actually, you are very bright, sneak. Just because I disagree with you sometimes doesn't mean I don't think you have clear thoughts. LOL
A very good point indeed. I rather agree with this approach about civil unions to satisfy the law, and marriage to satisfy the church. I think it could solve a lot of problems in a lot of ways.
Well said. I agree. When two people pledge their lives to each other and desire to enter into a legal contract, then that option should be available to them. The word "marriage" holds a certain meaning for those of some religious persuasions but should not be confused with the intent to make a lifetime bond under the law, especially in this country that is so proud of its civil liberty heritage.
Always right on Daniel. Couldn't have said it better. Families come in all types and in all designs...Love knows no bounds and all those other general comments we always hear.
Our children today already know this and are accepting of almost everyone, haven't found one teen in the last year that doesn't quietly ask me why we 30's and up still debating such topics? And yes Goldenpath, many of them come from very traditional backgrounds.
I have wanted this for years. I don't see why the government has to stick its nose into it at all.
With Bill in the hospital we hear, "Is this your wife?" at least ten times a day and we both just started saying "yes" because it's too big a pain in the ass having to explain EVERY time--as if it is anyone's business. Our reasons for not being married right now are complicated and not about our personal relationship or household. Neither of us feels like we should have to constantly explain ourselves to strangers at such a hard time--or ever, really.
We have a form that social work at the hospital is setting up for us so that legally it won't become a mess if things get worse, but I do like your idea. I think it's the right way to do it.
Civil unions is a misnomer. There's nothing "civil" about gay unions. And "gay marriage" is also a misnomer and a blatant attack on marriage.
And civil unions wouldn't work anyway. Think about it. If civil unions for gays become law, the government might as well plan on sanctioning as a "couple" EVERY two people who live together in "common law marriages", and the widow and her son/daughter who lives with her and takes care of her; also the arrangement of, say, two individuals who simply share housing for financial benefit or just for the sake of being close friends.
It's stupid to start the ball rolling in that direction.
It's evil to take steps to try to legally sanction homosexuality anyway.
I agree 100%! But what can we do I see hugh lawsuits on the horizon. The ACLU would like nothing more than to ruin religion in America.
Lawsuits? Yep. Maybe even jailing conservatives who try to uphold moral laws in the face of "politically correct" ones.
Myself, I've decided that when man's laws seriously oppose the laws of God, then I have no responsibility to cater to man's laws. I will become "lawless" if need be, and not give a whit, actually, because some things are worth fighting for, and even dying for if need be, and 2 of those things are traditional marriage and the rights of unborn children.
I went through this question awhile back with a gay person in here who when it came down to it wanted the name of marriage because she felt it was the only way it would mean the same.
I guess there is stubborness on both sides.
I think your point is that you are against the concept of same sex "marriage". While I agree with the idea of a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, what would you call the "union" of two people of the same sex in a church by an ordained minister?
There is nothing that Rhamson said to lead anyone to think that the position expressed is against the concept of same sex marriage. You ask a good question about the union of two people, but you preface your question with a falsity...Rhamson never said or implied an "against" stance.
You are correct Sally. I personally have nothing against either or. The post I made was just citing someone who said she wanted the term applied to be marriage to have true equality.
My comment as to stubborness was to merely suggest that there is a resistance on the other side to give up on naming gay unions as marriage.
My comment was in reference to the original poster (sneakorocksolid), and not Rhamson, but your comment was fair. The OP did not specifically state that he was against the concept of same sex marriage in this thread, but his activity in other threads has led me to that conclusion.
Some churches would not allow it and that would have to be respected, others, I don't know.
The vocabulary of "marriage" speaks directly to the Protestant roots of our country, adopted later by other religious institutions that have been "accepted" into the fabric of our modern-day American society. As a result, there's a perception of a built-in hierarchy to "marriage" throughout our variety of accepted religions, presenting it as a privilege rather than a right.
Presenting "marriage" as a bare-bones "civil union" is a step in the right direction, as "civil" is contained within our Constitution.
"Civil liberty" has been tried, as you know, unsuccessfully as the term "marriage" is continually linked to it; bringing all of that religion-based baggage along with it.
Maybe such a re-wording would link it more directly to the Constitution, by vocabulary, and make it another inalienable right rather than some perpetually-arguable attack on religious beliefs.
I think it's at least the beginning of a very good idea!
It's got my vote!
Who's going to reach out to Maggie Gallagher and see if she's in?
I'm glad we all have that sorted out. This is, unfortunately, a hot issue, in the USA and also among countries and cultures that lead by extremest religious viewpoints.
Spiritactor, I just saw your post, and I agree, mostly. But "marriage" has meanings quite beyond our Protestant heritage. Globally, the term still represents a joining of man and woman.
Yes, this is definitely a hot button issue for a lot of people. I live in Massachusetts, so I've seen some of the "heat" in my community.
Back to the original topic. Why can't we separate the current definition of marriage into civil unions and religious marriage? I guess the next question is: why separate them in the first place? The concept smacks of "separate but equal" in my eyes.
I do believe that each church should have the right and option to decide whether or not they will marry same sex couples.
I have no problem calling it a civil union. However, I reject any proposal that uses the term "marriage" in relation to the union of same-sex. To me and my faith marriage holds a very unique vow or contract that is exclusive between man and woman. It is the foundation of family and the authorized means whereby children are brought into the world. It is the order of family, nothing new, just the prescribed family from the beginning. Try not to shirk my words simply because of the "modern thought" on the subject. I would urge rethought for anyone who may think that society's current state of morality, policy and views on the family to be better or above those held in such high esteem a hundred years ago.
I support liberty and the ability to cohabitate with an individual of the same sex. I don't support the act but I don't dislike the individuals. If the people speak in support of the traditional view of the family we all have the obligation to uphold it. If marriage becomes widely accepted for those of the same sex, and I promise you it will, then I will follow the law knowing I did all I could to reject it.
It is my firm belief that we have already begun a very dangerous journey on a path that does not come full circle in our current state of the world. It is the beginning of the collapse of the family unit as the world had always known it.
That wouldn't change. Your church would continue to define marriage as it sees fit. Under the law, though, you and your spouse would be "civil union partners", not husband and wife (terms only used for marriage, which would not be something the government is involved in at all).
Keep in mind that there are plenty of churches that *do* allow same-sex couples of wed under their auspices, and you would not have any right to deny them that.
Agreed. It just goes to promote the claim that we are at the edge of a cliff from which there are no lifelines. The more we make gray the lines that once divided black and white the faster we will compromise ourselves into the swamps of bitterness.
The world has not always made the family unit as we know it today such a sacrosanct entity. Families have had other definitions through history.
I agree that the word "marriage" should define that unity of a man and a woman as proscribed by religious belief. It's just easier.
And so, let's move on.
There are those who believe that the downfall of civilization is caused by a cultural acceptance of homosexuality. Those who believe this cite references to the downfall of Greece and Rome. But then, doesn't that natural tendency of life, in the non-human animal kingdom as well as the human kingdom, say something about a characteristic that belongs to us life forms on the earth?
Better to accept it and get on with life than to legislate against it.
Absolutely. Many of the primary male figures of the Bible had multiple if not many wives and concubines, concepts we would consider polygamy and adultery today. They seemed to get along just fine, but that's a whole other can o' worms.
Beth, I think this is the can of worms.
Agreed. I appreciate the constructive criticism without the feeling of contention. I appreciate the historical illustration of polygamy. Being of the faith that is constantly blasted for having had practiced it well over a hundred years ago I sometimes forget that even that situation defined marriage for some. I could easily build a couple hubs explaining in detail the doctrines and practices of polygamy but I fear the incredible hate mail that would be sure to follow. Of course, that would probably bump me up to a 100 quick and fast. Just kidding.
To close on common ground I agree that they key is love. How one achieves this condition is between him or herself, the other and God. Thanks for the kind words Sally's Trove!
Absolutely perfect! My position exactly but I don't want to see the carnage if the ACLU gets in the middle.
It seems to me that "marriage" and "civil union" is all about semantics. They really become devices for legal/religious grounds, don't they?
What gay people want is the same as heterosexual people. A family life with a partner and in many cases, children. While this is definitely a can of worms to so many here, it's not meant to be. It's just pointing out the obvious.
Perhaps the semantics do become important in terms of how they can define rights. But whatever that may lead to should arrive at the same thing at the end of any person's day: a place to call home with a partner, and whatever form of family life that means to those individuals. Throughout history, these basic things have been different to different societies, religions and cultures. But they have one thing in common: love.
The basis for this motivation of partnering, family life and home really comes from love, doesn't it? If so, then whatever legalese needs to be created to insure this right--because we all seem to want it very naturally--should be inclusive, not exclusive.
Perhaps I am just old fashioned but the term marriage will always depict that union as being between a man and woman. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the same sex "marriage advocates" being so determined about definitions. The original impetus of the movement was to attain the same legal status that traditional marriages have in government benefits etc. Why is not enough to grant those same legal rights to same sex couples who want to create a legal civil union, with which I have no objection in the legal sense. I do not agree with it but I can say live and let live and mean it.
The church involvement in the process means nothing to me. The legal status is created by law, common law or statutory.
The legal entanglements have created a whole new pandora's box of fun for the legal profession, of which I am one, but so what! The public has spoken, even in California, which is where most extensions of legal rights occur in our courts. Why can't the proponents of a legal "marriage" for same sex partners, in name, as well as deed, be satisfied? Is it they that have the moral dilemna? I think I have hit a nerve.
Marriage as a legal institution hearkens back to a historical time when Church and state were one and the same and women were closer to chattel than people. Teasing out the religious dimension in a fair and equitable way will be messy. I don't see why civil unions can't be available to all and those with religious convictions can sanctify the commitment at the religious institution of their choice. It seems that would be a better way to sort it out than just legalizing gay marriage.
If there are legal problems with that plan, I'd like to hear what they might be. It would make a good hub if you wanted to write it.
by alexandriaruthk4 years ago
Same sex marriage - is it a civil or political issue?It is my opinion that it is civil enmeshed in political arena simply because of the privileges in a society.
by Christina5 years ago
Why is there so much controversy over same sex marriage?
by Innuentendre5 years ago
If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?
by belleart2 years ago
What are the reasons for keeping same sex marriage different to that of opposite sex?With the marriage equality referendum looming in Ireland I am seeing a lot of Vote No posters that claim children should not be...
by Elizabeth4 years ago
If you oppose same sex marriage, what justification do you have for condemningI get that the bible says it's a sin, but people are not putting gay people to death (mostly) in society today. I want to know why YOU...
by Felixedet20006 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.