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.
How can it not impact others when you are changing the meaning of the word marriage?
You keep using this word gay to describe homosexuality. You seem very comfortable with it describing the sort of person you are (at least in some ways). Obviously this word is important to you and you would not like it redefined by people who are not gay. Yet you have no problem redefining marriage to suit your needs. I guarantee you would s**t purple apples if the definition of gay were changed.
Actually gay does have another meaning as well, cheerful or something like that
Anyway, marriage is not really defined the way you think it is. If the word were manwomanunion or something like that, OK. According to etymology, marriage originally meant 'to provide with a young woman' (mari).
Now, are you against older women getting married? Or against two women getting married? And what about marriage in polygamy?
Your marriage won't get any better if you deny homosexuals the right to marriage. Nor the other way round.
The issue is the word marriage because the word defines the people who get married. I'm not a homosexual. I don't care if you are. I don't care what you and another guy do in private. It's really none of my business, but I don't want the word which describes one of the most important relationship one person can have with another altered.
Consider your word for a moment, "gay". I propose that all sexual deviants be defined as "gay" from now on. Rapist, child molesters, necrophiliacs, and all other perverts are now referred to as simply gay. Perhaps when someone hears that you are gay, you can explain that you are not one of those other gay people and that you are gay in the traditional sense of the word.
Does that work for you?
Leave our word alone.
I'm no more 'deviant' than you are. and i don't know what heterosexuality has to do with any of those things you listed?
I'm no more 'deviant' than you are. and i don't know what heterosexuality has to do with any of those things you listed?
Not everyone shares your opinion.
As I stated, the issue is the word marriage because this word describes the people who are joined in this union.
It is implied that a married man is committed till death to one woman who is likewise committed to this man.
The children, if any are conceived within this marriage, are also defined by the marriage.
The connection between marriage and implied, as well as mandated, heterosexual fidelity is obvious and self-explanatory.
Those of us who are inclined to procreate through vaginal intercourse have a use and a need for this institution and its mandated sexual exclusivity.
The need homosexuals have for this institution has nothing to do with sexual exclusivity because homosexual sex doesn't create children outside of marriage.
The interest homosexuals have in marriage is in gaining respectability and normalcy from it.
To do this they must change the meaning of the word marriage from natural relationships between one man and one woman to also include unnatural relationships between members of the same sex.
You can't make one the other without making both a little of neither.
Civil unions with the same benefits as marriage is clearly the compromise likely to make the most people happy.
What it doesn't do, and the reason it will be opposed by many in the gay community, is it doesn't transfer respectability from married heterosexuals to homosexual couples.
If gays are proud of what they are they shouldn't need to try to pretend to be something they are not.
If you are dissatisfied with your brand, work to change it, but deal with your own issue and leave us out of it.
i've been gay my whole life without choice. What do people who are against marriage equality think we shoudl do? marry someone of the opposite sex via lying to them? and then get blamed for destrying two lives? should we both be unhappy to make strangers happy? why does this even make strangers happy?
why would a GAY PERSON have a STRIGHT MARRIAGE?
btw, i'm 34 and still a virgin. I have a degree in religion and am a good person but I am waiting to find the right person, and when i do i although i live the state that i grew up in with my friends and family and i don't like moving far away from them I have to move FAR AWAY from family and friends to another state to get married, unlike most of you.
I simply don't understand how someone is PASSIONATE about ENSURING someone else doesn't get a right that they get becaue they were born differently.
Again, i don't get it.
what does someone's sexual orientation have to do with 'morality'.
why do some people think this should be up to 'the public' when voting on OTHER people's rights WHILE THEY ENJOY them are unconstitutional?
The biggest objection to gay marriage is tradition. Many religious conservatives believe the family is the basic unit of society. The further believe that in the family the husband should be the head and the wife should be dutiful and obey her husband.
Now if you allow two men to marry, or two women to marry it totally destroys this. If you have two wives or two husbands who is supposed to submit to whom? Who is supposed to be the higher authority in the marriage?
This prospect is what many on the religious right view as terrifying about gay marriage. To them it undermines the idea of traditional marriage, because it undermines that basic unit of a family under the leadership of one husband/father.
On the other hand if you view the individual as the basic unit of society and see men and women as equals in relationships gay marriage tends not to really a problem.
The issue is the word marriage because the word defines the people who get married. I'm not a homosexual. I don't care if you are. I don't care what you and another guy do in private. It's really none of my business, but I don't want the word which describes one of the most important relationship one person can have with another altered.
Consider your word for a moment, "gay". I propose that all sexual deviants be defined as "gay" from now on. Rapist, child molesters, necrophiliacs, and all other perverts are now referred to as simply gay. Perhaps when someone hears that you are gay, you can explain that you are not one of those other gay people and that you are gay in the traditional sense of the word.
Does that work for you?
Leave our word alone.
I somewhat agree, but it's more than just the word, it's the ramifications and the costs to society, the view of family, what children are taught and exposed to, and obviously religion. We have a Christian here sayin we are "haters'. It's not about hate, it's about preserving something we cherish as very special, marriage. It's about opening a door to polygamy, age limits, and open marriages. Studies have been done that gays don't view marriage in the same light as tradition holds - they typically have no problem including other partners into their relationship. The expectation of monagomy is loose or non-existant. As far as raising children, when gender roles are confused, what kind of message does that send to impressionable children? They will be confused, as well. The consequences are too dear to compromise on marriage, imo.
I won't pretend that gays, lesbians, trannies and bi's are normal, they are not. It's abnormal and not something to be encouraged - nor is it something to be shunned or ridiculed. I don't think being gay should define the person. I would hope they have more than their sexual desires to define their identity.
I view this as a protest, another aspect of our culture to be destoyed by cultural Marxists. They can have civil unions, take it or leave it.
As I stated, the issue is the word marriage because this word describes the people who are joined in this union.
It is implied that a married man is committed till death to one woman who is likewise committed to this man.
The children, if any are conceived within this marriage, are also defined by the marriage.
The connection between marriage and implied, as well as mandated, heterosexual fidelity is obvious and self-explanatory.
Those of us who are inclined to procreate through vaginal intercourse have a use and a need for this institution and its mandated sexual exclusivity.
The need homosexuals have for this institution has nothing to do with sexual exclusivity because homosexual sex doesn't create children outside of marriage.
The interest homosexuals have in marriage is in gaining respectability and normalcy from it.
To do this they must change the meaning of the word marriage from natural relationships between one man and one woman to also include unnatural relationships between members of the same sex.
You can't make one the other without making both a little of neither.
Civil unions with the same benefits as marriage is clearly the compromise likely to make the most people happy.
What it doesn't do, and the reason it will be opposed by many in the gay community, is it doesn't transfer respectability from married heterosexuals to homosexual couples.
If gays are proud of what they are they shouldn't need to try to pretend to be something they are not.
If you are dissatisfied with your brand, work to change it, but deal with your own issue and leave us out of it.
I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree - but it's too complicated for them to comprehend. It's easier to just call you a hater and a bigot.
Not everyone shares your opinion.
It is implied that a married man is committed till death to one woman who is likewise committed to this man.
The children, if any are conceived within this marriage, are also defined by the marriage.
The connection between marriage and implied, as well as mandated, heterosexual fidelity is obvious and self-explanatory.
Those of us who are inclined to procreate through vaginal intercourse have a use and a need for this institution and its mandated sexual exclusivity.
But if you look at statistics it seems that heterosexsuals usually don't stay married until death, they adopt kids or don't have them at all, many are not faithful, and vaginal intercourse isn't all they do and plenty have kids without marriage.
So the word marriage doesn't really imply any of that. I agree with the other poster who said it's just about tradition, but I'd add it's a FANTASY tradition. And I don't really want to deny someone any rights because of a fantasy.
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.
