Gay marriage or civil unions? The name game.

[artimus]

I hope this is in the right place and this isn't a redundant thread, but I've been curious.

We all know the reasons that one would get married. A commitment, mutual benefits, blah blah blah. Now, right now the problem posed most commonly is that of religion, specifically the ownership of the word "marriage." Now, I guess that the church has entered the trademarking business and wants to TM the word, and personally, I'm okay with that. I think that the big issue is the rights. In a business project, the name is the last step, and what you want to focus on is that your project can do exactly what the competitor's product can do. Basically, that's what the LGBT community wants, isn't it? The exact same rights as straight, married couples?

Here's my question. Do you think that the name is as important as the rights? Would you accept the same rights as marriage if it was called something else?

[Somebody]

First off, this is nitpicking at its most base level. What most gay couples want is not a fancy name but the right to be a legal couple like anybody else. The pride of being joined with another officially and beyond that being able to enjoy the ceremony and all other things that go hand in hand. Without being "Married" their relationship status is the same as anybody who is dating and a lot of gay couples would like to move beyond that to the utmost form of togetherness, both officially and socially. Marriage by any other name for them would be just as sweet. Mostly its just a term that's commonplace to describe something like mankind.

Secondly how does this even qualify as a rant? I don't think you quite grasp the concept of the rant board. I'm going to move this to the General board till I can figure out a more appropriate action.

[artimus]

Well, you'd be surprised by the amount of people who consider the wording as important as the act itself. Like the denial of the word is representative of the hatred the LGBT community is subjected to.

And please try not to grow too agitated. I told you I wasn't sure I was in the right place, so calm down.

[Tweak]

And please try not to grow too agitated. I told you I wasn't sure I was in the right place, so calm down.

And please try not to tell my staff members what to do publically, if you felt his reaction was overbearing you can PM the moderator concerned or an administrator.

[Blackout]

I wouldn't care, but I have the feeling that gays would want the word, and there's no reason they shouldn't have it.

(This is topic disappointed me, I read ''Gay Marriage or Civil Unicorns?")

[Asia Kali Yusufzai]

I can see why the word is important. It would put LGBT on exactly the same level as straight people. But as long as the rights are the same, I'm pretty sure most people can live with it, in the same way most African-Americans can stand being called such a thing, rather than just being called, American.

[JellyMuffins]

The issue with the name, for the most part, appears to be in idea that "Marriage" is a religious term. And hence, those who believe that homosexuals are 'evil' - like the church, don't want their religion compromised by an infringement on their beliefs in the 'sanctity of marriage' (regardless of the fact that 51% of marriages end in divorce). The truth is that no religion has a copyright on the word "Marriage" (or at least not yet), and hence the argument SHOULD be a moot point. Gay people should be able to call a civil union a marriage, regardless of what the Christian community might say, but if all the benefits of marriage are present and the couple feels it is just as legitimate as getting married in a church (which it is) then the name really shouldn't matter. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet;"

[iKero-chu™]

I wouldn't care, but I have the feeling that gays would want the word, and there's no reason they shouldn't have it.

(This is topic disappointed me, I read ''Gay Marriage or Civil Unicorns?")

ROFL. Civil Unicorns.
xD

Well personally I believe (If my opinion should matter :'P), that if the law won't allow homosexuals to marry then they should atleast make somethings thats exactly like a marriage in every single aspect, especially law-wise, except with a different name.

[¿ Jesse Pawman ?]

 those who believe that homosexuals are 'evil' - like the church,

I need to make a clarification, but you just stereotyped all churches as thinking homosexuals are evil.

I need to tell you something. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and also the denomination I am confirmed in) just voted to allow future homosexual clergy to not have celibacy.


http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4232


Don't assume all churches are homohaters. Yeah some are *cough*WBC*cough*, but not all.

[JellyMuffins]

You know, I seem to have done that. I do recognise that there are isolated incidences of churches being sympathetic to the LGBT cause and performing gay marriages as as religious ceremonies.
Strangely though, the US government has steped in to annul these marriages, bringing in questions about the supposed seperation of church and state.
I will admit I made an unfair blanket statement, but for the MAJORITY of churches, it does apply (I believe).

[Tweak]

I need to tell you something. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and also the denomination I am confirmed in) just voted to allow future homosexual clergy to not have celibacy.

Thus proving until recently they were against it.

[artimus]

Wait, does that mean that only the homosexual clergy was forced to be celibate? Or that only the homosexual clergy is allowed to be non-celibate?