Welcome to Gaia! ::

You maybe thinking "What? It gives homosexuals some rights as married couples." This is not what I mean. I am a strong advocate for gay rights. The reason we have civil unions is because we want to give gays rights as married couples. The whole concept is separate but equal rights. The Brown v. Board of Education clearly stated my point "Separate but equal is inheriently unequal." To make it equal and not separate is making some sort of process of "unity". Marriage should not be a legal occurance. When two people wish to make a unity of themselves, they would apply for unity. This process would make it equal.

I have to agree that marriage should not be a legal contract, but that's what it has been since... well, I'm a history freak, and I have no idea. Even outside of Christianity, marriage was a legal contract -- pagan Rome and Greece, ancient China... it at least dates back to the dawn of civilization.

The only thing about marriage that is new and extraordinary in recent times is that the whole notion of love has become attached to it. Sure, it makes sense to us, but our values and expectations are... well, compared to most of the rest of history, pretty bizarre. Noble families contracted marriages for their children largely for political alliances, and commoners... well, you've heard the term "common-law marriage"? A couple lives together for some certain time frame, and they're considered pretty much legally married, more or less. I don't know if this is still a valid union anywhere in the U.S., though.

But the commoners didn't have any political power to be gained or lost, so... no need to marry in the legal sense. And for those noble individuals who were in love? If they were fortunate (and inclined to) then they could marry; more often than not, that wasn't the case, though (save, perhaps, in polygamous cultures). For example, Constantius Chlorus, father of Constantine, was married to Theodora -- but Constantine's mother was his consort, Helena. She's believed to have been the daughter of an innkeeper, so a marriage with her would have had no political advantages. But they lived together for almost twenty years before he married the daughter of the Emperor and was named Caesar -- I'd call that pretty advantageous!

Anyway, what I'm driving at is that I actually think you're right, and that two persons who decide to sign a legal contract of union with one another should all be given equal legal standing, and if religious nuts are so adamant about marriage being a holy sacrament, let them have the damned word. It's only a word, after all. If a couple's legally united, then sure. Call it a unity. Hell, call it a thingamabob, as long as it recognizes that each person has equal rights -- and keep the segregational terms like "husband" and "wife" in the church's domain, too. Individuals legally united are spouses. It's in the bloody dictionary.

I'd even go a step further: civil unions (non-religious marriages) are not performed by any old schmuck, but by a justice of the peace. Or maybe Elvis. By a sort of state clerk, in a sense. And religious marriage ceremonies are performed by an ordained church official of some variety. Given the constitutional seperation of church and state we're told we have, I don't see any reason why the state should be giving its legal power to any church official, for any reason. That privilege should be revoked. I rather think that to be legally united, a couple should have to have a legal ceremony, period. If they still wish to have a religious ceremony, they can have one of those, too. But the religious ceremony should have no legal implications, just as the legal ceremony should have no religious implications.

[/rant]

Like I stated before, separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Actually, they don't. Marriage has 1,000+ federal benefits that are only granted to something that is federally recognized. Marriages and civil unions in New Jersey may have the same state rights, but the federal benefits and privileges are still denied homosexual couples. (source)

I agree with Conscience. Making something separate from straight couples--even if the only difference is the name--is unfair. Why should we make it different? Why shouldn't it be the same?

As for "that's so gay", I find that to be a very important problem. It's not all that great if wherever you go, you hear people using that word as an insult when you yourself identify as that word. Yes, there are bigger things--but that doesn't mean we should ignore the littler ones.

Yeah, it usually refers to state rights. It's awesome that Jersey's giving gay couples the same state rights as straight couples, but it's still not nationally legal yet.

I understand that. There a lot of inequality issues to address with queer rights, and some are more important than others.

I think one of the ways to diminish the use of "gay" as a synonym for "stupid" is to educate people, young and old. Not just about language, obviously. But a lot of people who use it really don't understand what kind of effect it can have. Yes, it's just a word, and if I hear it I normally just blow it off. People usually get ticked if you try to correct them every single time they use it. But at the same time, it's aggravating, it's offensive. Something one would rather not hear. So it's not a huge deal, but it's annoying.

Doesn't need as much attention as it's given? It hardly gets any attention in the real world. I know that language changes, but just because of that doesn't mean we can't try to fix that. It's different than just any old colloquialism when is slams a minority group.

Queer is used all the time by LGBT. It's not derogatory anymore. "Not straight and cisgendered" has become another definition for it.

I don't see how it's counterproductive to ask people to stop using it that way. And your analogy isn't making much sense to me either. Ignoring the elephant in the room would be ignoring something very obvious and quite possibly a problem, wouldn't it? How does that correlate to asking people to stop using "gay" as a synonym for "stupid"?

Like I said, it's not a huge deal. And it's not like a I take offense every time I hear it. But it does reflect on society to an extent, and the people saying it.

I might be wrong on this, but I can try to explain. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The "Elephant in the Room" was a term used to describe anything problematic and obvious, which was summarily ignored. The way homosexuality was treated in the early 1980s by the U.S. government is an excellent example.

And another way to word the analogy is to cite the movie Ghostbusters. In the end, Gozer says that the first thought that any of the Ghostbusters thinks will be the form that it chooses to destroy them all. Peter Venkman instructs them to not think of anything, but since that is generally impossible, Ray Stanz thinks of the most harmless thing he can: The Stay-Puft marshmallow man. Hilarity ensues.

Yet another way: DON'T THINK OF A BLUE BULL. Now tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

It's somewhat like the problem with underage drinking in the United States.

Because if you tell someone that doing X is wrong, it is human nature to do X as much as possible. Or maybe it's just American nature. We have a streak of anti-establishment in us.

Off-topic, but God, my head hurts. Last time I stay up until 4 after going to Necto.