Originally posted by sigma:
JaTo, I always enjoy our discussions, but I want to clarify something:

You are considering a "civil union" and a "marriage" to be equal as far as rights and benefits go, so when I read that, I only read a simple change of vernacular.



For all intents and purposes that I can see, yes.

Originally posted by sigma:
And actually, the only real difference that I can see between the two terms, is the religious observance. Being that a 'marriage' is what is "traditionally" observed by religion and a "civil union" is the same thing, just observed by the government.



Somewhat. Redefining a religious and secular union whose very definition that has withstood millenia of change is messing something that has been commonly held by religions and secular/religions/pagan governments of the world throughout time. In short, marriage is religious and could be considered secular as well (not all that are married observe any religious practice or notion); it doesn't change the fact that the very definition of "marriage" has been known to be (1) man and (1) woman in secular, pagan or the most religiously-devout Christian civilizations that have existed on this planet.

I don't think the definition of marriage is necessarily tied to religious principle solely, nor do I think it totally in the secular domain, given it's pagan roots:

It's akin to changing definitions of nature; a 70-degree day in Summer doesn't constitute a name-change of the entire season of Summer to Winter...

In short, let's call something different than marriage, well, something different than marriage and give it the same status and rights as observed by law, i.e, civil unions, joinings, bonding, pairing, whatever, just call it something different because it is.

Originally posted by sigma:
So, being that there is a seperation of Church and State, and being that we don't want to discriminate against anyone, shouldn't the government label your union as a "Civil Union", rather than a marriage, no matter what sex you and your partner are and leave the term "marriage" for the churches and the common vernacular (because it's just easier to say -- what's the past tense of "civil union")



For the most part. Any sociologist worth his salt will tell you there are a MASSIVE number of norms, both religious and secular in nature, that are associated with marriage. The concept/definition of marriage and the religious nature of it are extraordinarily difficult to seperate in most any culture that I'm aware of, so any government involvement of changing or "opening" up the nature of marriage to include anything past what it has for millenia has a LOT of homework ahead of them and SERIOUS discourse over the matter.

I totally agree that under current US law, gays and lesbians are discriminated against. I think this can be easily fixed without destroying/changing an institution that has ages of heritage behind it and alienating those with strongly-held religious beliefs.

Just call it something different than marriage and offer up the same rights, protection and punishment under law. I'm repeating myself here; let me know if I've misunderstood or misrepresented any point you were trying to make.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe