Legal and/or Civil Unions

[Fierce Critter]

Let's take religion out of the equation. Forget the "M" word altogether.

Are you for or against legal and/or civil unions for homosexuals?

[Shade Everdark]

As already posted elsewhere, it sort of takes a bit of explaining.

I am against civil unions for gays as a mere "equal" alternative to that M word.

Civil unions should be the legal term for everyone who enters that so-called lifelong commitment. That's what I'm for.

[Fierce Critter]

Which, if I understand you right, is how I feel.

Let's make the requirement strictly legal across the board. If you want a recognized legal husband/wife, you have to do it through the government somehow.

If you want to make that a marriage/handfasting/whathaveyou, add a ceremony of religious nature.

Do I get you right Shade? If so, I agree. 100%.

[The_Dark]

Drop the words Husband and Wife... then I'm for a Civil Union for all. Leaving marrige to the people... not the Church. As I have said before.. marrige is older than mankinds oldest religion. "The Church" only got it's hands on marrige about 400 years ago.

[saechalyn]

Let's make the requirement strictly legal across the board. If you want a recognized legal husband/wife, you have to do it through the government somehow.

If you want to make that a marriage/handfasting/whathaveyou, add a ceremony of religious nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm for that.

[Fierce Critter]

Drop the words Husband and Wife... then I'm for a Civil Union for all. Leaving marrige to the people... not the Church. As I have said before.. marrige is older than mankinds oldest religion. "The Church" only got it's hands on marrige about 400 years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) If a couple is united in a civil union, what are they besides husband/wife? What would you have them call themselves? And would you have that apply to male/female unions or just same-sex?

2) If Marriage is left then to the people, what people would that be? I don't understand what a "marriage" is if it isn't a religious thing?

I'm having difficulty understanding your distinction.

And once again, the M word has come in, and I was trying to avoid that, 'cause then this is causing cross-post traffic. It seems inevitable.

[The_Dark]

1. What ever they want to call each other.. but legal documents would not be able to use Husband or wife... those are words used to describe married people.

2. I'll explain this again.... Marrige is OLDER than religion. It's an Oath between a man and woman, sworn with witnesses from the local community. The Church only got involved in marrgie 400 years ago. Before that, you didn;t need a Priest or Shaman to get married. You needed a man and a woman who loved each other. You needed family and friends to bare witness. And you needed a day set aside to make said oath and then celebrate the occasion. Jesus christ on a crutch... people with such strong opinions on something that they have never really studied at all.

[Fierce Critter]

Jesus christ on a crutch... people with such strong opinions on something that they have never really studied at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gimme some credit for ASKING YOU to educate me on YOUR distinction, instead of just flying off the handle and, I dunno, screaming "YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE WRONG" and calling you a fuckstick or something.

[The_Dark]

I have never called you a fuck stick.

I have stated the above about 4 times today is all. Just getting frustrated. It does bother me that so many people have strong opinions on marrige but really.. have no idea what it is. Marrige has historically had more to do with Economics and Politics than it has religion. (Marriges between waring tribes and such. Dowrys and holdings) A marrige her and there has stopped many a war... but you girls decided to be equals and we cant do that anymore.

[Fierce Critter]

but you girls decided to be equals and we cant do that anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOMEN.

:grin

[The_Dark]

Same thing

[torn asunder]

I have never called you a fuck stick.

true, but i think she was trying to make a point...

I have stated the above about 4 times today is all. Just getting frustrated. It does bother me that so many people have strong opinions on marrige but really.. have no idea what it is. Marrige has historically had more to do with Economics and Politics than it has religion. (Marriges between waring tribes and such. Dowrys and holdings) A marrige her and there has stopped many a war... but you girls decided to be equals and we cant do that anymore.

people define "marriage" based on their understanding of it, which for the average person, extends no further than what they've seen/experienced first/second hand in their life. just because they haven't studied up on the history of the subject doesn't mean they don't know anything about it. to me, that's like saying people don't understand the concept of money because they never studied the history/development of the bartering system, or the differences between something like a gold standard and the promissory (sp?)notes we use for legal tender now. besides, thedark, your mentioning of it having more to do with politics and economics really, in my opinion, goes against the basic definition of what you said marriage was about.

I'll explain this again.... Marrige is OLDER than religion. It's an Oath between a man and woman, sworn with witnesses from the local community. The Church only got involved in marrgie 400 years ago. Before that, you didn;t need a Priest or Shaman to get married. You needed a man and a woman who loved each other. You needed family and friends to bare witness. And you needed a day set aside to make said oath and then celebrate the occasion.

this definition really has very little to do with politics or economics - those types of marriages typically had nothing to do with love and commitment. again, my opinion, and from what i know, the percentage of "arranged" marriages, (at least in the european societies from where many of our ancestors originated) was relatively small, when you consider how many "peasants" or lower class citizens there were compared to the "royalty" of the time.

...and now, i've lost my train of thought... i don't even know what my point was going to be - maybe i just wanted to be argumentative!?!? :laughing :whistling

[Steven]

1. What ever they want to call each other.. but legal documents would not be able to use Husband or wife... those are words used to describe married people.

2. I'll explain this again.... Marrige is OLDER than religion. It's an Oath between a man and woman, sworn with witnesses from the local community. The Church only got involved in marrgie 400 years ago. Before that, you didn;t need a Priest or Shaman to get married. You needed a man and a woman who loved each other. You needed family and friends to bare witness. And you needed a day set aside to make said oath and then celebrate the occasion. Jesus christ on a crutch... people with such strong opinions on something that they have never really studied at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure that even I completely agree with you here on this one.

depends on what social system yoru studying I suppose, in order to draw your conclusions.

before "the church" you had the law of Moses, thousands of years ago.

And - you had marriage, because scriptural text shows that Moses allowed circumstances for divorce. And Moses was the emmisary of YHWH, or God. Therefore you tie in the religeous aspect of marriage once again.

[Blackmail]

I think that homosexuals should have all the legal rights that a married couple have.

[JaneDead]

Let's take religion out of the equation. Forget the "M" word altogether.

Are you for or against legal and/or civil unions for homosexuals?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

for it. no matter what it is called. but since it is a union of people who are hopefully in love i think it should all be called the same damn thing no matter who you are.

[Steven]

for it. no matter what it is called. but since it is a union of people who are hopefully in love i think it should all be called the same damn thing no matter who you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, I cite this type of point of view as an example of what goes wrong in ANY marriage.

1) a "union". we have all kinds of unions here in Michigan. You dont like it, quit. Join another union. A union, and a covenent - are not the same thing at all in regard to the participating parties mutual understanding. One creates a need in you to want to do the work to stick and stay and create health. The other offers you a back door out.

2) "people who are hopefully in love" I know many, many people, (including myself) who split up and called it quits, while they were still in love. Being in love should be a mutually understood prerequisite for marriage yes, but in no way is it enough to sustain. Its like if I go to apply for an electricicans job my prospective employer assumes that I of course, have a good set of tools (being in love). But just because I have a nice tool set does not mean that I am trained or in any way qualified to turn me loose with electricity. there are some specific skill sets that first need to be accquired, that work in conjucntion with one another, and appreticeship also applies, requireing the assistance of a mentor. Same thing with marriage.

we seem to be vying for the homosexual right to be happy thru marriage.

but marriage does not equate to heteroseuals even being happy.

everyone has a RIGHT to be happy, yes.

But not many people seem to know how.....and they mistakenly pursue it thru "things'" that seem to equate to an accomplishment but in reality simply floats the fantasy for just a little bit longer till reality hits.

[The_Dark]

Steven...

Where exactly in the Bible does Moses marry anyone? Where does it describe what role the clergyman has in the ceremony? You wont find any referances to that kind of thing because it wasn't done. In Bilbical times, Marrige was a family/household thing.

Marrige today is different from what it once was. Far different. Yet, it still has three things in common. A Man, A Woman and some sort of Vow or agreement. Oh, and the Father giving away the Bride. Almost forgot that part... the daughter was property at that time.

In early Roman times things start to change a little. Lower classes had what we would refer to as Common law or Free marriges. The father would deliver the bride to the groom and his family. An agreement was reached and vows to keep said agreement were taken. No church.. No Government. Now, the upeer class had a bit more to worry about. People owned things. People liked thier things. So, the upper classes. They signed documents listing propertys and holdings. They wanted a legal way to track thier belongs in the event the marrige fell apart or someone died.

Some time during the reign of Justian, lawyers drew up the Justian Code. Which was pretty much rules on how to live your life. In this Code was the requirement that all marriges be of public record. Hence, to this day.. we file legal documents about marriges. This was sometime between 527 and 565.

Some time around the 9th centry.. the Church got slightly involved. They started giving a blessing at weddings.

It wasn't until 1563 at the Council of Trent that the Church really made a play to take control of weddings. That council required all Catholic weddings to take place at a church, be performed by a priest and have at least two witnesses. By the 18th centry... every weddings in Europe was being done at churches.

On this side of the pond.. we took a slightly different course. Some of us wanted Church weddings... some of us wanted Civil marriges. So, each state passed it's own laws. By the end of the 18th centry.. civil and religous ceremonys were legal everywhere in the states.

Now thats just a brief on marrige in western cultures. I dont even touch on Concubines and arranged marriges. I could go a bit to the east... and bring up the Arab cultures... 2 - 3 wives to have your kids... a small boy for pleasure...

[JaneDead]

Again, I cite this type of point of view as an example of what goes wrong in ANY marriage.

1)  a "union".  we have all kinds of unions here in Michigan.  You dont like it, quit.  Join another union.  A union, and a covenent - are not the same thing at all in regard to the participating parties mutual understanding.  One creates a need in you to want to do the work to stick and stay and create health.  The other offers you a back door out.

2)  "people who are hopefully in love"  I know many, many people, (including myself) who split up and called it quits, while they were still in love.  Being in love should be a mutually understood prerequisite for marriage yes, but in no way is it enough to sustain.  Its like if I go to apply for an electricicans job my prospective employer assumes that I of course, have a good set of tools (being in love).  But just because I have a nice tool set does not mean that I am trained or in any way qualified to turn me loose with electricity.  there are some specific skill sets that first need to be accquired, that work in conjucntion with one another, and appreticeship also applies, requireing the assistance of a mentor.  Same thing with marriage.

we seem to be vying for the homosexual right to be happy thru marriage.

but marriage does not equate to heteroseuals even being happy.

everyone has a RIGHT to be happy, yes.

But not many people seem to know how.....and they mistakenly pursue it thru "things'" that seem to equate to an accomplishment but in reality simply floats the fantasy for just a little bit longer till reality hits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i was not trying to imply that love = happy marriage. i only wanted to state that hopefully when people go into a marriage they are in fact, in love. if you are a man loving a man or a man loving a woman. i hope before you *unite* you are in love, along with a list of other things. i know that love is not enough but i hope it is present when 2 people decide to start a life together.

i don't think that homosexuals with find happiness through marriage. you find happiness within yourself, not other people or by marrying other people.

but if they want to be married i don't think any of us have the right to keep them from doing it.

i am straight and married but if i were a lesbian i sure as hell would not want the government or church or a bunch of regular civilians telling me i was not allowed to marry another woman if i wanted to because it is only for straight people.