?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Marriage vs. civil unions - The online computery journal thingy of a turtle

Nov. 7th, 2008

09:41 pm - Marriage vs. civil unions

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Lots of other people on my friends list are debating the whole marriage/civil union thing. What I wanna know is... how come the religious types get to keep the word "marriage"? My mom and dad got *married*, and they're not Christian! I say, we call the legal union "marriage" and make the Christians use some other term for their religious ceremony. How about "holy matrimony"? That sounds nice and grand and dignified and what have you.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:penh
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:07 am (UTC)

Holy Matrimoley!

(Link)
So, would people get
a) holy matrimonied
b) holied matrimonially
c) other?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:20 am (UTC)

Re: Holy Matrimoley!

(Link)
"Joined in holy matrimony", of course.

This is my evil plan: to make them use more syllables! >:}
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:penh
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:44 am (UTC)

Re: Holy Matrimoley!

(Link)
Bwah-hah!! Soon their keyboards will collapse under the strain of your fiendish polysyllabicity! In fact, if you can make them use the word "polysyllabicity" once in a while, it will hasten their doom!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:svashtar
Date:November 8th, 2008 06:25 am (UTC)

Re: Holy Matrimoley!

(Link)
There is much verisimilitude in the idea of polysullabicity.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:penh
Date:November 8th, 2008 07:00 am (UTC)

Sesquipedalianism FTW!

(Link)
Wait a moment... am I to understand that the 's' stands for 'sredni'? If so, I am be-awed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:November 8th, 2008 07:51 am (UTC)

Re: Sesquipedalianism FTW!

(Link)
I'm thinkin' yes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:svashtar
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:21 am (UTC)

Re: Sesquipedalianism FTW!

(Link)
Three cheers and a tiger for you. You have won!
Most people assume I got the name from some video game I've never heard of, but the truth is you can't go wrong with points of toast and a good mantra.

Do one thing for me Sredni Vashtar.

And I would hazard to guess you are the Penh of Critters fame.

Edited at 2008-11-08 08:23 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:penh
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:24 pm (UTC)

Re: Sesquipedalianism FTW!

(Link)
Dunno about the fame, but spot on with the Critters. :) Also, woo-hoo! Free tiger!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:doodlesthegreat
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
How about calling it "We're having sex!"
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:tilton
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:11 am (UTC)
(Link)
No no no. That stops when you're married!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date:November 8th, 2008 07:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Speaking as a married person ...

Oh, yaws, but they gots it!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:maxgoof
Date:November 8th, 2008 05:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
SAY MAN AND WIFE!!! JUST SAY IT!!!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:svashtar
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
Mawwiage.
Mawwiage is what bwings us togethahhhh today.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:November 8th, 2008 09:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
Have you... the wing?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:deckardcanine
Date:November 8th, 2008 07:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Take your pick.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:baphnedia
Date:November 8th, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not stepping on other's comments...

The origin of the gay marriage 'issue' is that there are civil liberties and benefits to being 'married'. The inequality isn't solely about the right to 'marry'. It's the right to take out joint loans, file joint taxes, and get huge tax breaks, in all, things that can save a couple thousands of dollars per year before they even count any adopted children.

There are two ways of going about this: Remove all civil benefits of marriage from our society, and who can and who can't marry will be of purely religious consequence, and everybody pays taxes, regardless of how many spouses and kids they have. Or, do as many are trying to do now, which is legalizing same-sex marriage.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:q_pheevr
Date:November 8th, 2008 04:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
How about "holy matrimony"? That sounds nice and grand and dignified and what have you.

I believe the full and proper term for it is "holy matrimony, Batman."

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
More grist for the "Batman and Robin are gay" rumor mill!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date:November 8th, 2008 07:34 pm (UTC)

And, for the possibly unpopular view, here's thecanuckguy!

(Link)
I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion, being a Christian (although a somewhat unorthodox one, as I'll point out)

For the unorthodox-for-a-Christian view, I fully support defeating (I forget, is the goal to defeat or support Prop 8?) the bill as I thin that gays have every right to get married just like the rest of us. baphnedia's comment about removing benefits and just making it a religious matter is acceptable too, but there is absolutely no reason in my mind to say "you can't" to gays and not to others. And the part about them not being allowed to raise children is absolutely and utterly ridiculous - my church, which is quite conservative, even recognizes single-parent families, of which there are several in our congregation, and those kids aren't being raised by a mom and dad ...

Now, for the unpopular view. I also believe that if you consider yourself a Christian, that you can't be a practicing homosexual. Christians are bound by the Bible - the rest of the world isn't (and forcing the Bible and/or it's morality on people is simply reprehensible in my book and completely against Jesus' teachings!), and are bound by the Bible's laws only after they accept Jesus as their personal saviour, much as how one is only entitled to the priviledges that comes with US citizenship when one becomes an actual citizen and pledges to uphold the constitution (or whatever they say at citizenship ceremonies). The Bible is very clear that Christians cannot serve both God and the world, and the homosexuality is something that Christians cannot do. Everyone who has become a Christian had to give up something from their "old life", myself included, because it is against God's laws for them, for homosexuals it is homosexual sex. But, as I said, before, forcing the world to behave under the Bible's stands, when they are not Christians, is wrong. Christians: you may recall the story of when Jesus met with the Samaritan (ie non-Jewish) woman who was "shacking up with her boyfriend"? This was against the Scripture, but Jesus never told her that she was going to hell for doing it, but rather loved her as he loved everyone else (except the judgemental religious zealouts, even Jesus had harsh words for them!) we should do the same for the homosexuals, and loving them would mean treating them the same as everyone else. And treating them the same as everyone else means giving them their rights, including that of marriage.

Apologies to the non-Christian readers who had to read a lot of religious stuff in there, and I hope it didn't come off as preaching, because it wasn't meant to be (well, it was meant to be preaching to the Christians who weren't treating their fellow humans with respect as they are commanded to) but I did want to get that off my chest.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:deckardcanine
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:04 pm (UTC)

Re: And, for the possibly unpopular view, here's thecanuckguy!

(Link)
I agree.

I might mention that many same-sex marriage opponents recognize that nonreligious marriages have been conducted for a long time -- and never in history did one religion account for all marriages. Trying to withhold the mere term from analogous gay unions raises the question of whether, say, Hindu unions shouldn't count either. Instead, these opponents look to secular arguments involving economics and the way government deals with families. I have yet to follow their logic on those paths.

Then there are those who want the government to stay out of all marriages, believing that the legal benefits can be obtained by other rationales. I'm not convinced. Any social contract is bound to get the law involved once somebody gets accused of not honoring the deal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:kinkyturtle
Date:November 8th, 2008 08:37 pm (UTC)

Re: And, for the possibly unpopular view, here's thecanuckguy!

(Link)
Yup, anyone who claims "marriage" is a religious term and thinks gays should be allowed civil unions but should not be allowed to call it marriage is ignoring or forgetting all the married but non-Christian people in America.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)