To basically everyone: See, the thing is, religious people who are against gay marriage are against it strictly for the label. They're fine with civil unions (well, the ones that aren't against gay people in general). It's a rather simple solution to an argument that shouldn't really still be talked about. And much in the same, I'm tired of people saying about how gay people don't have equal rights because they can't marry (I'm talking strictly in the US of course). Everyone is making mountains out of mole hills, which I really find just annoying. Perhaps it's my apathy speaking, but this issue isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be, so change the label, and most people will be just dandy.
Teh Cataclysmic One: I was talking more about marriage in its modern role. Apart from its benefits from the civil marriage, which I discussed, the only real reason it still exists in the US is because of religion, which is why people are so up in arms about it. What we've really seen is that there are quite a few romantically attached couples living together yet not being married. The difference between a theoretical couple doing that and a theoretical married couple is a certificate, and a few things. In accordance to the government, they get tax benefits, benefits upon the death of a spouse, and more. On the religious side, well, apparently I'm not allowed to say it according to Euky. In the US it no longer plays a political role, and it truly is an outdated institution.
With that being said, I would have to disagree with that court ruling about marriage being a right. I mean, the UN placed internet service as a right. Marriage is not as ridiculous as that, but it's close. Now, my opinion, as someone who isn't a lawyer sure doesn't hold any ground in court, but in terms of common sense, why would marriage be a right? What about marriage makes it a right? In religious times, it was a privilege. If you got excommunicated, you would no longer be allowed to get married. So why is it a right now?
If you look at the definition of a right: "A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way," you see that it's place as a right holds ground only so long as it is a civil institution. Since it is asinine that you have to be romantically-linked to get the benefits imparted onto spouses today, once marriages turn into civil unions (and I don't expect them to), marriage no longer has any grounds as a "right" in the US.
Superemo: I think telling the Church to change its stance on anything is rather unfair. The basis of the Church is the Bible, and according to their interpretation, gays aren't allowed to be married. (I know the verses, but with the restrictions on certain words, it's rather hard to discuss). You're basically telling them, follow how I view your book, or change your religion. Religion is an ideology, politics is not. It's hypocritical, in my opinion, for any religion that doesn't believe in a living prophet to change their religion even the slightest, and so your saying that they should change their stance is something I would oppose entirely.
Kaelin: Having conditional civil unions would make sure that cheating nullifies the civil union. It would also protect business partners and other people in different scenarios. If civil unions were drawn up like wills, it would make the system a lot more fool-proof.
< Message edited by Mo -- 8/18/2012 4:58:10 >