Welcome to Gaia! ::

If the option was made to me, I would enter a civil union; however, that doesn't mean that I would stop there. It is something that needs to be treated as a stepping stone, not an end point. As much as I hate to say this, when I read this all I could think about was South Park sweatdrop . In one episode, gay people are fighting for their right to marriage, and the solution that the governor comes up with is to offer them the same rights as marriage, but instead of being husbands or wives, they would be "butt buddies." The same thing applies in real life. The term partner (or whatever term they use) is viewed by others as demeaning and wrong. My problem with the whole situation is that even though I feel that we should be able to get married the same way straight people are and that these type of names are wrong ethically, I want my husband to be treated the same way my wife would be if I married a woman, and to recieve the same benifits, I'm more than willing to swallow my pride and accept what is available at the current time (of course, we don't really have the rights I want right now, so the point is moot cry ), and hope/fight for a better tomorrow.

Then again, forget fighting. I've decided that rather than deal with all this junk, I'm going to find me a man and run away to Canada xd

If the government needs to provide a "civil union" or a domestic partnership" as an alternative to marriage out of religious reasons, then the government needs to stop recognizing marriages. Separation of church and state, it's a good thing to have. Give civil unions to everyone, I say. That way, angry fundamentalists have to stop using their religious texts as an excuse to deny LGBTQ folk rights.

The appropriation of the word "marriage" by any particular religious school of thought is pretty idiotic in the first place. True, the Abrahamic definition of marriage may be the "union of a man and a woman", but considering that not everyone in a given country is of such faith, it's damn arrogant to let it affect everyone. It's really ridiculous that two atheists getting married would have to comply to religious requirements.

As someone who does not WANT to get married, I think the title of the arrangement is stupid. It is all the same.
Though I still feel as though calling it something different, despite what it entitles is saying "You can do this gay people, but you have to do it this way."
You can get married and it be something that is not religious at all now a days if you are straight, so why not let me do the same if I so choose?

I don't understand the hang-up over the term "marriage". If it were only applicable in religious ceremonies, then I could understand, but as it is, it applies to secular ceremonies as well. So I see no reason why it should not apply to same-sex couples. Having a different term (if the rights involved are identical) is just silly and childish.

If the laws were changed so that "marriage" only applied to religious joinings (so, nothing to do with actual rights or government benefits or recognition), and civil/domestic partnerships applied to everyone else (same-sex or otherwise), then fine. But man, what a waste of money...

I'm very happy that same-sex marriage is legal in my country. :/

Personally, I'm not very concerned on the matter as I used to be, because for myself I'm not worried about marriage right now.

I do support same-sex marriage, and I believe that it should be allowed. I don't mean I believe that all the religions should have to have it in their churches when they don't support it, because if that's against their beliefs. I just don't think they should have the right to say we can't marry. It's not what America was supposed to be about.

If the titles gave the full benefits as the title of being 'married' was then yes, I would accept the title, and go along with it, but I'd still consider myself married, because they're the exact same thing.

That's just what I say to it.

Why does it matter what the name is as long as the rights are the EXACT SAME. shouldn't we all be able to be miserable together smile I mean, you see WAY more divorces in straight couples than you'll EVER see in Gay couples because they work harder to get to that point and it is harder for them to be together. Doesn't the gay community deserve to at least experience was so many straight couples cant stand to be in?

I say, religious groups should not be able to issue marriage licenses and that the marriage is signed by a JUDGE or JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. Sure, you can have your ceremony in the church/synagogue/mosque/temple but the marriage is validated by the law, not the religion. Then, no religious group can say "no, gays can't get married" because they have no standing to tell them no. I don't really care that marriage is supposed to be a "union between a man and a woman" because half of the time the "union" doesn't stand up for more than a couple years or someone is sleeping around. And last time I checked, Adultery was against the law and all major religions smile

Look at the description of this stamp. She says it better than I ever could.

And to me, civil union =/= marriage. I would be in a civil union, as long as I could get married and then gain several legal rights that we currently don't have in a civil union.