Short film: what if "gay" and "straight" were switched?

[Kantor]

BasilZero said:
@Osc89

1) Or how about removing the benefits of unions (i.e. tax breaks or w/e) overall since it seems to be the REAL reason why people are arguing over the argument you are using.

2) Like I said, you can have civil unions from the state but churches shouldnt be forced to do something that their laws forbid them to support nor should you say they should change their laws in terms of matrimony between men and women because they refuse to do something you want them to do.

 You say marriage is older than the christianity version? Then why force Churches to do those weddings? Why go through all the aspects then? Why not do it like the first union however that was like. (Apologize if they are the same - though I think they arent)

(Doesnt affect me because Indian weddings are different from western weddings at least the type of indian wedding my culture goes by - (i.e the verses they use at the end, more aspects than western weddings etc)

Note - I use the word "Aspect" cause I cant think of a word to describe for use for each event/step in a wedding lol.

1) This would be so ideal it borders on utopian, but unfortunately it will also be damned near impossible because of how ingrained the institution is in everyone's minds. See the resistance to increasing the number of marriages by around 5%? Imagine the resistance to abolishing the legal institution (and its benefits) entirely.

2) I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, no law in effect or even proposed would legally oblige a church to carry out a wedding, and I fully agree with you that that would be an appalling violation of religious freedom, which is after all just an extension of personal freedom. Nobody should be forced to carry out such a ceremony against their will.

The issue is with a law that states that even if you are fine with such a ceremony, you still can't carry it out because The State says no, and The State knows what is best for you and everyone else, and you should just sit down and shut up and listen to what The State tells you.

And, to a lesser extent, with a law that states that an individual priest cannot carry out a marriage unless his religious organisation approves of it. That seems kind of tyrannical, but as I say, it's slightly less of an issue because that priest volunteered to be a part of that religion and can easily leave it.

For me, the ideal solution would be to have a civil union (call it whatever you like really, but apply it uniformly) that deals with next-of-kin stuff, inheritance, visitation rights and all of the other conveniences that entails, without any of the tax breaks, and have this be the only union recognised by the state. Any wedding vows and such made before a religious official would have no legal backing or recognition whatsoever, but could of course be undertaken in addition to a legal registration.

I don't find anything remotely offensive or controversial about that idea, but do let me know if there is something I've missed.