Should people of homosexual persuasion or orientation's legal unions be referred to as "marriage" as opposed to a "civil union"?

Asked by: bothsidesguy
  • Separate but equal was already ruled unconstitutional once in this country.

    Calling a homosexual union something different than a heterosexual union is just another way to try and discriminate against them, to make them something "lesser".
    A way to deny them the thousands of federal rights allowed to married couples, including inheritance, power of attorney, child custody, insurance, social security, pension, military benefits, and more.

  • Of course they should.

    Other countries have been calling same-sex marriage 'marriage' from the very beginning.

    Marriage isn't just about pro-creation (if it was, straight couples who were infertile, elderly, or just didn't want kids would be banned from getting married too), or a union between a man and a woman. It's about two people joining in marriage and committing to each other because of love. Marriage is about love, or it should be.

    Calling marriage a 'civil partnership/union' just because the couple is same-sex just reinforces the negative ideology that it's not a 'real marriage' and it's 'abnormal.' That needs to change.

    If a couple gets married for love, be it a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple, then it's marriage. Simple as that.

  • They're people too

    Contrary to popular belief marriage is not a Christian ordeal. Marriage originally started as a way to stake claim on a person. More than one roman emperor married a man. Straight people are not the only ones who deserve marriage equality. In our current time marriage is a way of showing love. Everyone should have that right. If I wish to marry a girl I should be able to. You should not differentiate between gay marriage and straight marriage. There shouldn't be civil unions just marriage. If two consenting human beings choose to marry they should be permitted so.

  • Yes, it's arbitrary discrimination otherwise.

    The definition of 'marriage' as only applicable to a 'union between a man and a woman' is archaic and has no grounding in reality. The fact of the matter is that the basic theory of 'equal, but still separate' that forms the heart of the 'civil union' idea is inherently unfair, unequal and discriminatory. Likewise, to deny any possibility of union between loving couples based purely on the grounds of them having the same biological gender is, to put it plainly, irrational and based on fundamentalist nonsense. It would be like granting similar, but not identical human rights to non-Caucasians, and then just not calling them 'human rights' to justify the discriminating differences.

  • Yes they should. No question about it.

    We are all equal. I'm sorry that all the opposite comments are saying that it related to the bible etc. but it sort of makes gays feel a little crappy when we are shoved in a corner and told that what we do is wrong and that even though it is the same thing as straight people. We must have a different term for what we do because we are gay. If only they could feel the pain.

  • It isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition.

    a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
    b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
    c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

    2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

    3: an intimate or close union

    In the future, I highly recommend referencing a dictionary when you are unclear about the meaning of a word.

  • Marriage has always been defined by people of opposite sex being joined together.

    The word marriage calls to mind, the picture of people of opposite gender being united together in a special and important partnership. A partnership which is important for the community; something which will bring children, prosperity, richer social occasions and sympathy amongst people. Although homosexual relationships are had between people in communities, those communities, even if they love and accept homosexuals cannot celebrate their relationship in the same way. When meeting a married couple, on knows that they obviously consumaeir marriage with love-making and affection, and that feels "kosher", "acceptable" and an expression of the heart which adds to the universe in a strong way. But, any imagination of a homosexual couple, reminds one of human frailty, dependance and isolation, even if one is okay with homosexuality. In other words, that people sometimes are different from what they ideally would wish to be. Since people cannot celebrate homosexual relationships in the same way, it is too much for society to ask people to consider homosexual relationships to be as celebrate-able and loved as heterosexual unions, which express a higher vision of the union of one heart to another. A male and a female. Because a male and a female can reproduce, and go through the ups and downs of reproducing and parenting, in a dynamic way which holds meaning and interest to the community, it is warrented to say that their union is "special" in a way which can be internalised by the community. Since a homosexual union - even if one accepts homosexual people and loves them - cannot be internalised as "special" and "important" by the community, the word marriage should not apply.

  • no I think not

    Even though I don't think that one can deny gay or lesbian the right to a legal union and to marry,I don't think that it should be referred to as a marriage because the definition thereof is between a man and a woman strictly. The concept of marriage is closely related to the ideals of childbearing and rearing and is accepted by society as such,so you cannot deny that they have a right to be together,but just don't call it a marriage,call it a "civil union" it's a more appropriate term,in my opinion!

  • No, I would suggest a middle road system.

    I understand that marriage was created as an union between man and woman that makes sense to me. As does simply referring to gay marriage as a civil union with full legal rights. But I mean come on guys two guys or two girls demanding to have the same union as designed between a different sort of couple? That is like Fascists wanting to join the Comintern and asking the institution of the Comintern to represent fascists as well as Marxists XD Also I do not like the "childbearing" argument as old folks get married all the time. In ancient Confucian China homosexual relationships were tolerated even accepted as equally as harmonious as heterosexual relationships but marriage as the union of a man and a woman would never have been demanded. This is the model we should strive for, the one that existed before the centuries of persecution. Also I do not see why they could not adopt children to, my best friend after his mom died was adopted by a gay man and he is doing well. Equal legal rights: yes. Equal social recognition: yes. Redefinition of marriage: no. However this issue really odes not affect me, nonetheless the old school Confucian system of sexual orientation seems the best path for our nation if not all.

  • Homosexuals should have civil unions with full rights

    Gay unions are fundamentally different than straight unions and so should be called something other than marriage. This does not make them inferior, just different like an apple is to an orange. They are both fruits (pardon the pun) but they are different in fundamental ways. I know we are all tired of hearing this but gays cannot reproduce, plain and simple and reproduction is part of the definition of the purpose of marriage, even when reproduction cannot or does not occur. It doesn't mean that the ability to reproduce makes marriage superior. It could be that a union of gays that cannot reproduce is superior...Who knows but we do know that they are different in that fundamental way and it would be confusing to have them all called the same thing.

  • not at all.

    Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Homosexuals are starting to take the definition out of marriage. God created Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve. God created Adam and eve, not eve and Rachel. If you don't believe in god, then nature should be enough to show you homosexuality is wrong. Sex is for reproduction, or at least that's what nature created it to be. You are not born gay and there is absolutely no evidence to prove that you are.

  • Everybody gets what they want

    I have a gay son and he was born that way. Even as a child I could tell he was gay by the way he walked, talked and acted. I firmly believe that a person can be born gay. With that said I believe that gay couples should have every benefit that straight couples have but I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't see the problem in calling a joining of a gay couple in love as a "union" or something that differentiates between a straight couple and a gay couple. I don't understand the stubbornness of those that feel "discriminated" or "disrespected" by calling their joining together as a couple something other than a "marriage".

  • The government should not change the meaning of marriage

    A relationship between two people of the same sex is not the same as a relationship between a man and a woman because men and women are not the same. Allowing same sex couples to call themselves "married" is changing the definition of marriage. It isnt right for the government to change the meaning of a word that has a special meaning to so many people to accomodate and very small percentage of people whose relationships can not benefit society. If the government wants to recognize couples in a secular way then it need to give everybody civil unions since "civil union" is a secular term. "Marriage" is not exclusively a government term so the government has no right to change it.

  • Church says NO should stay that way.

    In the UK gay marriage was voted legal me personally I think it was a way so Cameron could use it as a scapegoat for a country so close to the brink of civil war it's unimaginable. The UK government is trying to force gay marriage onto the Church of England and the Catholic Church when their religious beliefs are against it. Not only this but have you noticed how they're only forcing it onto Christian beliefs and not Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism surely the laws of gay marriage should affect them as well.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Bullish says2013-05-17T22:45:10.087
Marriage is define as "man and woman". Calling gay legal unions marriage is like calling an apple an orange. Sure you can do it if you want, but its confusing. (Don't worry, I'm for gay rights)
Ragnar says2013-05-17T23:18:34.523
They can call themselves whatever the heck they want, it's really none of my business.
AnonyFeline says2013-05-18T09:46:21.420
The semantics between "marriage" and "civil union" is important, but not as important as the benefits of the resultant "pairing". These benefits include emotional companionship, economic discounts, tax breaks, death/inheritance decisions, and finally religious benefits. No one should be denied the right to choose their life companion, husband, or wife. This would segregate anyone considered an "outsider" or not falling within the "norm" from being counted as a true equal citizen. We must all be afforded the ability to lessen our economic and tax burdens, as well as choose whom to leave responsible for us in sickness, and what we leave behind in the event of our passing (remains and property). The society would not be equal if it would allow any particular or group any more or less of these (civil) benefits. The only caveats are the those associated with religion. In the United States, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another." --Justice Hugo Black (1947) Using this concept as a model for the aforementioned "society", and using "paring" to replace "marriage" and/or "civil union", it is clear that all individuals within the society must have access to all the above benefits, but the society cannot REQUIRE any church or religion to accept all of these individuals into their fold. If one were to establish the (hypothetical) First Church of Same Sex, that required all "paired" members to be of the same gender, then that church/religion must have the same status within the state as any other. The important thing is that any "pairing" or "coupling" must be available to all citizens of a truly equal society.
Anonymous says2013-05-20T11:33:10.150
Same-sex marriage used to be sacred among native tribes. It was only Christians started messing around with that and got it banned that it stopped being seen as such.