+388

You think every marriage (gay or straight) should just be called a civil union (when it comes to the government) and religions can call the union whatever the fuck they want, amirite?

77%Yeah You Are23%No Way
yay_im_wrongs avatar Relationships
Share
17 69
The voters have decided that yay_im_wrong is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

pikabeaus avatar pikabeau No Way +62Reply
@pikabeau Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

Marriage was not created by religion, so religious people should have no say in what the government calls it.

@pikabeau Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

@iamawalrus: No, marriage was around long before any Abrahamic religion. It was initially used as a form of payment between two families. A woman was given to a man as his "property." Religion certainly developed marriage with their ceremonies and traditions, but they had no part in the creation of it.

@pikabeau Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

Yeah, but it's just because anyone who opposes gay marriage because "marriage is a religious thing between a man and a woman" (which i disagree with) wouldn't have anything to argue.

Anonymous +8Reply
@pikabeau Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

Even if religion DID invent marriage, which it didn't, it wouldn't matter. Modern marriage, or civil union or whatever you want to call it, isn't always a religious thing anymore. Two secular people can get married with no connection to religion at all.

Cpt_McMuffins avatar Cpt_McMuffin Yeah You Are +4Reply
@pikabeau Or it could stay called a marriage and everyone else in society can call it whatever the fuck they want.

Even if the term "marriage" was created by religion, that would only prove the point of this post further. Religious people can still have the right of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman if they want to, while still allowing same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples before the law.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1734090

@ crazy girl
You said keep the tradition in calling it marriage, yet tradition is one of the main points against gay marriage.

J_A_C_Ks avatar J_A_C_K Yeah You Are +6Reply
@1734090

But you could still say you're marrying her.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +4Reply
@1734090

But if they're equal (and not separate) why does it matter?

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +3Reply
@1734090

I just said equal and /not/ separate. They'd be called the same thing, so why does it matter?

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +2Reply
@1734090

Even if it was a secular invention or of a religious origin, the church still claims the government can't cross the boundary into certain matters that remain under the church's jurisdiction i.e. marriage.... So, it really doesn't matter so much where it actually originated from because the church will always say that it's sacred, and founded by God etc. whether it really was or not... And i said in my comment "has always been held as a sacred and holy institution by the church."

Let's just say all Christians were literalists(which the majority are not), so they believe that marriage was given by God to Adam and Eve. This is their opinion and in a country where 80 percent of the population is Christian, they should be allowed to express these views. And since there isn't necessarily any scientific evidence that disproves that God really did create Adam and Eve as the first humans, whose to say it wasn't true? Anyway, what I'm getting at is that under the views of christians and atheist, the origin of marriage varies

J_A_C_Ks avatar J_A_C_K Yeah You Are +2Reply
@1734090

But calling it a civil union wouldn't limit anyone's rights, either.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +1Reply
@1734090

Atheists/government cant claim it as their own, nor can Christians (technically)
So since nobody REALLY own marriage or founded marriage or whatever, why not just separate religious marriage from a formal, civil union?

J_A_C_Ks avatar J_A_C_K Yeah You Are +1Reply
@1734090

The church doesn't have to recognize every marriage that the state does. Legalizing gay marriage does not force anyone who disagrees with it to perform the ceremony.

@1734090

But even where it becomes law you still can't get religiously married and civil union sounds better for as a government term.

iamthewalruss avatar iamthewalrus Yeah You Are 0Reply
@1734090

The difference is that using the word "marriage" is a tradition that doesn't hurt anyone or limit their rights.

@1734090

Marriage was a secular invention; why would any religion have the right to define it? Marriage is just as much a legal institution as a religious one, so the government can say that anyone can marry anyone else, but not that the ceremony must be performed in a religious space or by a religious person.

@1734090

What you said: "there isn't necessarily any scientific evidence that disproves that God really did create Adam and Eve as the first humans..."

What you should have said: "There isn't necessarily any scientific evidence that disproves that God really did create the universe."

We have proven evolution, and how the Earth was formed. We don't know what caused the big bang.

Anonymous 0Reply
@1734090

Right.
People always say that there should be a separation between church and state (GREAT!) --in order to support the fact that the church doesn't have the right to force their views of marriage upon all the citizens, homosexuals, athesists christian, etc; and that the job of legally defining marriage should be left to the government without the influence of the church.

But I've always thought the converse: If the church has to stay out of the business of the government and vice versa, shouldn't that mean the state can't just step in and change the definition of marriage, which is has always been held as a sacred and holy institution by the church.

The argument works both ways. So in order to avoid the argument of who has the rights( or ownership) of the institution of marriage, either the church or government, wouldn't it just make sense to separate the two into religious marriage and a legally recognized, more formal union?
A religious marriage would basically still be the same thing, except it would just be called a civil union. And a civil union would be the same thing as marriage, just called something else, as to not harm the christian teaching of marriage.

J_A_C_Ks avatar J_A_C_K Yeah You Are -1Reply

This is a really good idea. Part of the problem with politics today is that people forget the separation of church and state because the state uses the same terms the church does for different concepts. Religious marriage and legal marriage are completely different things.

Anonymous +19Reply
@This is a really good idea. Part of the problem with politics today is that people forget the separation of church...

I really wish there were more sensible people like you who understood this argument.

Apple_Pies avatar Apple_Pie Yeah You Are +1Reply

50 years from now, all these religious crazies are gonna look like the people who didn't allow women the right to vote. They'll look at us as "that period" where irrational descrimination still lingered despite all the accomplishments of gender and racial tolerance. We're gonna be percieved as how we see the present KKK today.

I think it should be called marriage, just not in a religious case. No church should be forced or required by law to marry gay couples if it goes against their values. But I think it should be referred to as marriage; marriage isn't solely a religious concept.

OR, (and I'm just throwing this out there), MAYBE we could all get the fuck over ourselves and stop denying people rights based on their sexual orientation and then EVERYONE could get married! Sounds like a pretty awesome idea, too bad the church doesn't like it. If only we had some sort of seperation between the church and the state, that would sure make things alot more fair. Yeah, that would be nice. Oh well.

@hiimbobiworkhere OR, (and I'm just throwing this out there), MAYBE we could all get the fuck over ourselves and stop denying people...

But if people feel that "marriage" is a religious word, we're violating the separation of church and state by using that term. I'm saying EVERYONE's "marriage" is called a civil union, and they can call it whatever.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +1Reply

I would much rather say that I married the love of my life than I civil union'd the love of my life.

@John_Smith I would much rather say that I married the love of my life than I civil union'd the love of my life.

But that's okay for you. It's just that the government shouldn't be giving out religious titles. Leave that to the church.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +4Reply

If we're going to make marriage and civil unions the same thing, why call it all a civil union rather than a marriage? Perhaps this is just my perception, but it seems like "marriage" has a more positive connotation than "civil union," because civil unions are mostly for people who can't get married.

I'm sorry if I sound really ignorant.

@partinobodycular If we're going to make marriage and civil unions the same thing, why call it all a civil union rather than a...

No, you're right. Right now, that's the connotation of civil union. But if everyone had the official title be civil union, it wouldn't be a problem anymore.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +2Reply
@partinobodycular If we're going to make marriage and civil unions the same thing, why call it all a civil union rather than a...

But it also wouldn't be a problem if everyone had the official title of marriage. Rather than say, "no one is allowed to have a marriage anymore, you can only have a civil union," we could say, "no one has to have a civil union anymore, we all get to have marriages."

Why don't they just legalize same sex marriages? It doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't bother anyone, why are they against it over there?

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1736223

NOT EVERY MARRIAGE, oh god dumbass. Maybe you, anonymous, should read the damn argument before YOU start retorting.

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE can marry, but NON-RELIGIOUS people can civil union. Maybe you should read my fucking post before you go spewing off.

sparesecondss avatar spareseconds Yeah You Are 0Reply
@1736223

no, every legal marriage would be a civil union. it makes more sense for a government term anyway. and you can't force churches to marry gays.

iamthewalruss avatar iamthewalrus Yeah You Are 0Reply
@1736223

@spareseconds OP never said that a non-religious person can't call their civil union marriage. They can call it whatever the fuck they want.

I don't even get what you're saying if I was off.

Anonymous 0Reply
@1736223

But the government would be calling it a civil union. If this post said that every "union" was the same and it didn't necessarily have to be called anything and that people can decide their own name for it, then I'll agree. If there was no government name for two people "unioning" then there would be no separation and no issue. But if you're going to have the same process called one thing by one group and another by another group, it's unnecessary segregation.

sparesecondss avatar spareseconds Yeah You Are 0Reply
@1736223

But the government would NEED a name to recognize it as. What would you propose it would be?

Anonymous 0Reply
@1736223

Doesn't matter. The same name recognized by the same government. If the government doesn't recognize religious marriage as a different name than regular marriage, then it's ok with me. Maybe I did misread the post, sorry about that. My point is the government shouldn't call one set of marriages a different name because it's pointless. If religious people want to call their union a marriage within their own home, that's fine. I took this post to mean that non-religious people would have a different name for their union, which I found unnecessary. Sorry for overreacting.

sparesecondss avatar spareseconds Yeah You Are 0Reply
@1736223

Reread the post. That's not what OP said. OP said that EVERY marriage is called a civil union. Because then fundamentalists can stop complaining. Religions call the union what they want to. Before you go on a rant, double check what you're fucking retorting. They might just be on your side.

Anonymous -2Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1736178

There always has to be one of you, doesn't there?

GryndStones avatar GryndStone Yeah You Are +11Reply
@1736178

Why not? It's a thought provoking post that can actually get debates going. I think it's better than a lot of the potds lately.

@1736178

It sparks a discussion and can actually be quite stimulating. I don't understand why people always expect the POTD to be something witty and/or funny. A debatable topic can be just as good.

Boufakas avatar Boufaka Yeah You Are 0Reply

Civil unions don't have anywhere near the same amount of benefits as marriage.

@eldorito Civil unions don't have anywhere near the same amount of benefits as marriage.

Yeah, but if this were to happen, the benefits of what is now marriage would be the same as a civil union.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are +1Reply
@eldorito Civil unions don't have anywhere near the same amount of benefits as marriage.

Yes, but that would be changing the definition of a word, and that's one of the anti-gay marriage group's arguments.

I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not.

Also, I don't understand why people get so mad over there being traditions that started out religiously. In the pledge of allegiance, it DOES say "one Nation under God.." so I don't care if you have the same beliefs or not but you have to realize that we DO have a religious back ground so, yes, it would make sense for there to be religious traditions.
If you are really that upset about it maybe you shouldn't live somewhere where you can't say the pledge of allegiance and actually agree with it.

Please dont get too offended though, just stating my opinion like everyone else.

Anonymous -6Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

But that has only been in our pledge for the best fifty years or so. That doesn't make it our "religious background".

Anonymous +5Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

But "quite a while" doesn't make it good. "Part of our history" doesn't either. Just because slavery was around for a long time doesn't make it just.

Anonymous +2Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

Also, a lot of people who disagree with the words "under God" omit them from the pledge of allegiance. When saying it with the group, they will say everything but those two words, and it doesn't make them any less patriotic. I believe there's a movement to have those words taken out entirely.

@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

Okay well you guys can vote down my comments as much as you want but my whole point is that no matter what, there were and are still a lot of religiously-based laws and traditions in America and even if you don't agree with them, you have to at least acknowledge the fact that theyre there and at one point it time the majority of the people that lived here didnt have anything against them. You should be able to accept the fact that our country has been religiously-based in the past and stop trying to act like our leaders had no clue what they were doing.

Anonymous 0Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

a) It wasn't a Christian-based past, which is the main group against this

b) Society evolves. They used to have slaves. That doesn't make it correct to own a slave.

yay_im_wrongs avatar yay_im_wrong Yeah You Are 0Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

Yes but that also doesn't mean that everything in the past is wrong. There were some bad things but that does not make everything bad.

Anonymous 0Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

No my logic was we should trust that the people who made those decisions back then knew what they were doing and at the time it was the right decision and the majority of the people here agreed. You might not agree with it now but people did back then.

Anonymous 0Reply
@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

I think the problem is that we still uphold laws that were founded religiously, for no better reason than tradition. People aren't so much upset that these laws were made, as they are upset that they are still in existence when they've become outdated and the majority of people no longer supports them. Does that answer your question?

@I think changing the name would take away some of the importance of it, whether it started religiously or not...

Maybe but that is still quite a while, and it is still a part of our history.

Anonymous -1Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.