Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all semantics. The traditional definition of "marriage" involves a man and a woman. I have no issue with gays defining a state of union with all the joys and headaches and legal ramifications of marriage but you've got to call it something else. The word "marriage" is already taken. I am offended by and against any attempt to change the definition.
When I tell someone that I am married, I want it to be perfectly clear which side of the plate I'm batting from.
How? How does it affect your marriage in ANY WAY, or mine for that matter?
It makes NO changes to heterosexual marriage. That part of the definition of marriage is wholly unaffected.
So there would be 2 classes of marriage?
Quote:
Even if true, it's completely irrelevant. All you are saying is that it is offensive to you. What you want is for the law to protect your OPINION, in a way that negatively affects the lives of others.
Too bad. That does not affect your rights.
There are a lot of things that we would disagree on that might be more opinion-based, but you have your right to said opinion as much as I do.
Quote:
But you don't have the right to have the government enforce your religious opinions on others.
AT
ALL.
Sure I do. I'm a member of this society. If the majority feels the way I do, that's how it works. Don't like it? Oh well. I don't want to have to pay for abortion with my tax dollars...but I do.
No, to categories if you like. Personally I don't think it does even that. Marriage is marriage. The point is it does not affect the details, the validity, the legal or economic status of YOUR marriage.
It only represents a social change with which you do not agree. So what. Your agreement isn't relevant when constitutional rights are involved. Your opinion of marriage received no special protection under the law, and that is really all we are talking about.
Quote:
There are a lot of things that we would disagree on that might be more opinion-based, but you have your right to said opinion as much as I do.
Yes, but I am not the one whose opinion, if made into law, denies part of the population access to a fundamental right.
Quote:
Sure I do. I'm a member of this society. If the majority feels the way I do, that's how it works. Don't like it? Oh well. I don't want to have to pay for abortion with my tax dollars...but I do.
Civil rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Civil rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Civil rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Civil rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Civil rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
How many times before you understand this basic concept of our system of government?
If interracial marriage had been left up to a popular vote of the people, it would not have been legal until the mid 1990's -
30 years after it was made legal through the courts. Would you have been okay with denying interracial couples marriage until the 1990's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Then by the same standards, a state that the majority do not want interracial marriage should be able to vote on it and place bans on it. There is no difference, it is still mandated discrimination.
Good afternoon,
Personally, I would not care since I'm against government being involved in marriage period through licenses and through "benefits" to married people. I'd rather people of all races and sexual orientations obtain their marriage recognition in a church or civil institutions that want to recognize it.
Legally, I do care because banning interracial marriage is a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Banning gay marriage is not. Race and sexual orientation are not similar and it's an insult to Blacks to make those comparisons.
Last edited by Freedom123; 03-29-2011 at 11:58 AM..
For the record, I believe that the word "marriage" should be out of the government's vocabulary because it is a term derived from religion (after all that is where the word originates). So, I support partnerships being homosexual or heterosexual when considered by the government for taxes or insurance rights, etc. However, "marriage" should be only between a man and a woman because that is its definition, much like how we define what a "citizen" is or what "property" is. So, no, I do not support a homosexual couple getting "married" in a Catholic Church. The government has no right to take that sacrament and redefine it how they want to.
No, the word did NOT originate with religion. Before the church decided it had to control that part of life, marriage was strictly a contract between two families allowing the spouses each to benefit from the other's family connections.
Personally, I am not gay but have no problem with gays having the right to get married. I would like to know why a homosexual couple that spend their lives together just like a married heterosexual couple are not allowed to receive the same benefits???
It's all semantics. The traditional definition of "marriage" involves a man and a woman.
Actually, the real traditional definition involves a man and many women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient1
I have no issue with gays defining a state of union with all the joys and headaches and legal ramifications of marriage but you've got to call it something else. The word "marriage" is already taken. I am offended by and against any attempt to change the definition.
Because you would have to allow straight people to enter into civil unions (those straight people who do not like the baggage that comes with the term "marriage"), then you will add to the erosion of the institution of marriage as a percentage of straight people will avoid marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient1
When I tell someone that I am married, I want it to be perfectly clear which side of the plate I'm batting from.
Well you DO realize that even if the GOVERNMENT has two classes (civil unions and marriage), POPULAR CULTURE and language will refer to gay people as "married" as "spouses," etc.? Gay people already refer to long term partners as "husband" or "wife" and... GASP.... sometimes wear wedding rings.
And that's why social conservatives may win a battle, but they ALWAYS lose the war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
