I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Well, if we make gay marriage legal, then it gets legitimized, now doesn't it? If you got married to your buddy, your first marriage would have been to your buddy. We're talking about the hypothetical fake marriage to a girl, here, right?No, it wouldn't have really existed. If you got married without any intent to have a marriage, but rather to game the system, that's not a real marriage. And that's why you can get an annullment - a marriage never existed.It wouldn't be real. It wouldn't be legally real, it wouldn't be morally real. You seem to intuitively understand that - you don't want your first marriage to be fake - but if it's fake, it wasn't a real marriage in the first place. You can call it whatever you like, I guess. The rest of us are going to call it "marriage". When I meet my uncle-in-law's husband, that's how I'm going to refer to him - as a husband. Because he's married to my uncle-in-law. No, seriously. They have a house and everything. Ok, but I don't see why your dishonesty is anybody else's problem. I don't see why my uncle-in-law would have to be barred from his husband's room at the hospital simply because you don't have a problem with being dishonest. Can you explain it to me? Obstacle to what?

"Bolding" added for this message.Yes, you would also need a civil union if you wished such organizations as government and business legally recognise the union. Filing a joint tax form requires a civil union. Inheritance procedinging such as the surviving spouse automaticly getting all possessions unless otherwise arranged would require a civil union. Special visitation rights in a hospital would require a civil union.A religious marriage would or could be recognised by God and whatever churches, other organizations, and individual who choose to recognise the religious union. But it would not be recognised by the legal system as a contract between the parties. In other words, the religious wedding is not a civil union.Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Left something out.

I don't know what the rules are over there, but in the UK if you get married in an established church (RC, CofE, etc.), then you get the civil union at the same time. If you're not religious, you can just do the legal bit in a registry office or some other place licensed to do it.Come to think of it, surely that's the same in the US too? Isn't that what crashfrog described a few posts back?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?'q3psycho [url=http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=193&m=16#19 /]]]][]]]]

We will let you have your civil-union to your buddy so long as you love him and consummate the relationship forsaking all others.Anyway I want a different word for marriage between those of a religious persuasion. After all when I marry my dear sweet atheist girl I don’t want our marriage to be tarnished by all that associated ”wrong thinking’ that comes with the religious ideas those people have. Therefore I want those of faith who want to get ”married’ to accept the new term “religious union”. It will still offer all the legal recognition of real marriage but not the name (to which it has no right of exclusivity anyway)

Why bother getting married at all? What is the purpose of a marriage for you, beyond a commitment to your partner that you could make without any ministers, justices of the peace, or anybody else?I agree with ohnhai. Religious marriage should be separated from civil marriage. Seems to me you're talking about religious marriage--some specific ideal to the "meaning" and "form" of marriage. What does that have to do with the practical side? You can have that meaning and form without the practical issues (i.e. different accounting methods, financial obligations to each other, different legal consideration).It puzzles me as much as it puzzles you, I think.

a harm on a reasonable standard is not an objective harm, to a person. their wishes become considered when enough people agree that a behaviour is so abhorent that any practice of it will objectively harm another person.for instance, child pornography is outlawed not because we find it disgusting. it is illegal because it victimizes and traumatizes children -- which is the part that causes our disgust. when it violates the rights of others in the majority of cases, not minor abuses. we very rarely propose amendments for such a reason. i can think of only two such cases: slavery, and prohibition. and prohibition was repealed, for good reason. amendments are normally proposed to protect the people from abuses of government, not to protect the people from themselves.i think we can all agree that slavery objectively harmed the rights of others, not JUST the reasonable standards of one group. debating it? yes. but few amendments have ever been proposed to explicitly limit the rights of others. and the only that got through was prohibition. i don't believe i posted anything above that was a personal opinion. just the legitimate legal reasoning. i have yet to see a specific claim of WHAT the results will be. faith says that society will fall apart, but neglects to explain how, and what exactly will happen. i hope not. it would be a said that democracy really does become the tyranny of the majority. we must protect the rights of everyone, including the minorities. i think you'll find a good portion of the other amendments are written with that goal in mind, not enforcing majority opinion. yes, it does. claims of potential harm are being thrown about, but most of us cannot figure out what harm you and others are talking about, and how exactly it affects you, or anyone else besides the two people being married. if there is no harm being done -- or it's just going to hurt your feelings -- that's not enough. the potential harm being done is important, otherwise it should not be a point against. and how much of a potential is also important. if it's a few minor abuses you're worried about, it's not a good argument.

---

Because, sometimes, the extra red tape keeps you from doing something you'll regret.People disappoint each other, critically. When they do, the massive amount of societal pressure to "make marriage work" helps outweigh the mind-bending levels of doubt, dispair, anger, and hurt that pile up on the other side.There are some committments that are so important that your own willpower just isn't going to be enough. Sometimes society needs to be there holding you in place when you simply don't know what you want to do.

...so let's outlaw divorce. sounds like as good a plan as any.

Seems like marriage is just fine the way it is. That's been my experience, anyway. What problem does your solution solve?AbE: Just fine, except for that it's straight-only, currently. Sorry if that was unclear. That isn't fine at all, of course.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

In a society where failed marriages outnumber the successful ones, I'm not feelin' a lot of the "massive amount of societal pressure" that you're talking about.And take a culture where there IS this massive amount of societal pressure to conform and live up to promises such as marriage: Japan. Anecdotally, marriages often wind up empty, with partners being more like roomates than anything else. Who is benefitting from the pressure to conform then?People who don't understand what commitment is are not going to learn it by feeling pressured into staying with someone. On the contrary, I think that leads to less commitment. I would rather see no external pressure to commit, watch people fail and learn from themselves, and then learn to be committed.Live & Learn.

Let's first tackle the issue that you have concerning how gay marriage affects YOUR marriage. How does their marriage have an affect on the outlook of your marriage? How does anyone elses marriage affect YOUR marriage? (Let's leave out the slippery slope hypothetical, for these two questions, that gay's receiving benefits affects YOUR marriage. Anyway's you indicate in the above quote that the issue is your outlook on marriage.)Second, homosexual marriages exist all over the world and have historically been normal parts of various cultural institutions. Marriages as social institutions, fundementally, universally and historically, have not been "just" between a man and woman. Therefore, your pretext that gay marriage will "redefine" marriage or even destroy the value of a heterosexual marriage is plainly bogus.

well, it seems to me that this whole divorce thing is making a mockery of marriage. people don't take it as seriously when they know they can get out of it -- and so they're more inclined to marry people just to cheat the system and get benefits.besides which, it's un-biblical. as jesus said:

quote:

---

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

---

and as we all know, the bible prescribes the following punishment for adultery:

quote:

---

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

so not only should we outlaw divorce, we should punish re-marriage with the death penalty. anything less poses a grave danger to the fabric of our society, and our god-given values.Edited by arachnophilia, : (i hope people understand the serious point behind the sarcasm here)

---

Fu**in' A, Spidey! If we're gonna have Sanctity of Marriage(TM), we gotta start doing sumthin about those adulterers. As it is said, "Infant in Infancy not have as much fun as Adult in Adultery!" And the fundies sure don't want anyone having fun...

exactly.i say death. anyone got any good throwin' stones?

---

Heck no. Divorce is a sacred insitutions too.THe Church of England was founded on Divorce.And that those gay marriages will ruin the sancity of Britany Spears first marriage.