|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 17:19:10 GMT -5
Really I think we need to do away with marriages and just have everyone get civil unions. It would save a fuck ton of trouble in the long run.
Ironbite-and it'd make everyone equal.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 17:26:05 GMT -5
Except civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage. Unless you just want to call marriage "civil union", and get rid of civil unions all together. But it's just easier to just call marriage marriage, and allow gays to be married.
Are you seriously catering to the people who claim that the religious connotations means it can't be modified?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 13, 2011 17:34:17 GMT -5
I thought gay marriage was already legal in Scotland. O.o hmm... maybe in my vision of Bonnie Scotland. Civil partnerships are. This legislation would expand on that. Since the SNP have a majority government, the Lib Dems and Greens have both expressed support and Labour are likely to vote with the government (but can't bring themselves to publicly support any SNP legislation ahead of time, no matter how popular), the opposition of church groups who would not even be forced to carry out same sex marriages anyway means little in a country where only 11% of the population* and falling attend Christian churches on Sundays. * and were it not for Glasgow's Catholic immigrants from Poland and various denominations attended by African refugees, that number would be a lot lower. Fun fact: more religious services on a typical Scottish Sunday are conducted in Polish than Gaelic. THAT may be what I was thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 13, 2011 17:43:31 GMT -5
You would think that both of these religions would have more important things to be concerned about. Helping the poor and charity is apparently less important than making sure people who love eachother can't marry.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 17:46:12 GMT -5
Becomes more aparrent when these people actually closed charities to refuse to help gay people.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 18:09:34 GMT -5
Except civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage. Unless you just want to call marriage "civil union", and get rid of civil unions all together. But it's just easier to just call marriage marriage, and allow gays to be married. Are you seriously catering to the people who claim that the religious connotations means it can't be modified? You misunderstand. We're not making civil unions equal to marriage...we're getting rid of marriage altogether in terms of legalese. That's a real word? Weird. Anyways, you can get married but you still have to get a civil union and that's the only thing that matters in terms of a legal sense. Ironbite-not sure how this is such a hard concept.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 18:14:15 GMT -5
Except civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage. Unless you just want to call marriage "civil union", and get rid of civil unions all together. But it's just easier to just call marriage marriage, and allow gays to be married. Are you seriously catering to the people who claim that the religious connotations means it can't be modified? You misunderstand. We're not making civil unions equal to marriage...we're getting rid of marriage altogether in terms of legalese. That's a real word? Weird. Anyways, you can get married but you still have to get a civil union and that's the only thing that matters in terms of a legal sense. Ironbite-not sure how this is such a hard concept. Do they do that in your country (UK?)? In America, a civil union gives only a fraction of the benefits marriage does. You'll have to spend a lot more time and money trying to get several of the other benefits that a marriage could do.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 18:26:41 GMT -5
....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh that's hilarious. On a level of brandonrizzio. No dude, I'm in America. I'm talking about America. Why the fuck would you even think I'm in the UK?
But no, you're still misunderstanding. We redefine civil unions to be what marriage is now. The benefits of marriage become the benefits of civil unions. You can still get married but that means nothing. It's the civil unions that do the legal stuff.
Ironbite-in the UK...now you see why I make fun of you?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 13, 2011 18:33:48 GMT -5
Essentially, marriage becomes a religious union of two people that has NO political weight... and civil unions are a secular union of two people that carries ALL of the political weight.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 18:35:37 GMT -5
See Zach gets it. Not sure how you don't.
Ironbite-then again...
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 18:39:12 GMT -5
Well, this thread is talking about Scotland is it?
Plus I think Addy said Brendan "negatively stereotyped" you.
I don't really see the point of renaming marriage to civil union if we're not changing anything. Why not just call it marriage? A lot of legal/business papers use marriage, and they'll all have to change. Having two identicle institutions is meaningless and won't save trouble.
EDIT: we already have a word for religious union of two people that has NO political weight... it's called holy matrimony, or whatever the religion wants to call it for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 18:42:49 GMT -5
Because people get all butt hurt about gay marriage. Take that away from people and their arguments sound even sillier. Also it's not two identical institutions. You take away the legal rights that come with one and suddenly you've got a level playing field. Which is what it's all about. Also you're the one who assumed I was from the UK btw.
Ironbite-just saying.
|
|
kzn02
Full Member
The Master of Tediousness
Posts: 140
|
Post by kzn02 on Dec 13, 2011 18:48:06 GMT -5
Just like that story about land creatures and birds fighting each other, and then comes the bat.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 18:52:31 GMT -5
Will they be signifigantly less butthurt? These people tried to ban civil unions. You can't argue with fundy homophobes outside their religious texts... and even then
I would support your proposition if it was feasible. But the proponents against gay marriage won't allow you to take away marriage right, and they won't allow to give rights to gay couples. They'll be complaining that teh libruls are trying to destroy marriage by removing the rights. Nobody will allow it. Many even want to stop gay couples from being shown on tv, serving in the military, adopting children, ect.
Someone who thinks Same sex couples should have the same marriage rights as straight couples shouldn't have a problem with using that word. It's completely illogical considering that marriage has been a secular institution and that there are words to describe a religions union between people seperate of marriage.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 13, 2011 18:55:49 GMT -5
Actually, taking away the legal rights of marriage and making civil unions the only thing that matters is feasible. You just have to not give a fuck about the feelings of the fundies. Seriously, if that's all that's holding you back, the argument is invalid.
Ironbite-but there is always someone who does give a fuck and the whole thing just falls apart...that's when I get mad.
|
|