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.
The very core of marriage has changed multiple times throughout the years. Marriage being an equal partnership is something that is VERY new when discussing the history of traditional marriage.
Yes, but equal partnership between who? Seriously, what's so wrong with admitting the truth? That marriage is an institution that joins a man and a woman in matrimony.
Now, if you want to argue that marriage should be redefined to include same-sex marriage, then you have a point. But to just willfully ignore the traditional purpose of marriage? That's just bizarre, IMO.
Civil Unions do not have all of the same rights as does a marriage has. Equality is the best approach and true equality is not through a Civil Union its through marriage, going down to town or city hall and getting the same civil marriage license you and I can get.
I can clearly understand being against Churches being forced to grant same sex marriages, but being against going down to town or city hall to get married in a way that has NOTHING to do with religion??
Then the fight should be to change civil union laws so that those who form such unions have the same rights that are afforded to married couples.
At this point, it seems like the argument isn't "we want full rights" but rather "y'all have it...why can't we?".
Yes, but equal partnership between who? Seriously, what's so wrong with admitting the truth? That marriage is an institution that joins a man and a woman in matrimony.
Now, if you want to argue that marriage should be redefined to include same-sex marriage, then you have a point. But to just willfully ignore the traditional purpose of marriage? That's just bizarre, IMO.
By adding same sex marriage you aren't re-defining marriage you are just expanding who can get legally married. Changing marriage to become an equal partnership between a man and a woman instead of property, legally beatable, legal rape, etc redefined marriage MUCH more than same-sex marriage ever would.
Then the fight should be to change civil union laws so that those who form such unions have the same rights that are afforded to married couples.
At this point, it seems like the argument isn't "we want full rights" but rather "y'all have it...why can't we?".
Calling it Civil Unions is NOT Equality period. Its simply not. Gay couples should have the same exact rights to get a legal marriage to who they love as you and I do.
By adding same sex marriage you aren't re-defining marriage you are just expanding who can get legally married. Changing marriage to become an equal partnership between a man and a woman instead of property, legally beatable, legal rape, etc redefined marriage MUCH more than same-sex marriage ever would.
Yes it is redefining it. Marriage has always been an institution that joins a man to a woman. Past changes still did not alter this structure (woman as property, polygamous marriages, IR marriages, etc). Same-sex marriage alters the very foundation of marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Calling it Civil Unions is NOT Equality period. Its simply not. Gay couples should have the same exact rights to get a legal marriage to who they love as you and I do.
Ahh...so now we come to the real argument. The fight isn't for full rights, the fight is that gays should be allowed to get married since heteros can.
Hmmm...would you feel the same if the marriages were restricted in such a way where it *still* didn't give you full rights? I mean, you're married so that's all that's important, right?
Yes it is redefining it. Marriage has always been an institution that joins a man to a woman. Past changes still did not alter this structure (woman as property, polygamous marriages, IR marriages, etc). Same-sex marriage alters the very foundation of marriage.
Ahh...so now we come to the real argument. The fight isn't for full rights, the fight is that gays should be allowed to get married since heteros can.
Hmmm...would you feel the same if the marriages were restricted in such a way where it *still* didn't give you full rights? I mean, you're married so that's all that's important, right?
No its not redefining it, its expanding it. The definition of your marriage is not going to change because gays are allowed to get married. The definition of my marriage (when I get married) is not going to change because gays can now get married (which they legally can here in NY).
The argument is for full rights, calling it something different is NOT full rights. Separate but equal is NOT full rights, it is NOT equality.
No its not redefining it, its expanding it. The definition of your marriage is not going to change because gays are allowed to get married. The definition of my marriage (when I get married) is not going to change because gays can now get married (which they legally can here in NY).
The argument is for full rights, calling it something different is NOT full rights. Separate but equal is NOT full rights, it is NOT equality.
Sorry, but it is redefining it. Expanding it also redefines it.
define: Give the meaning of (a word or phrase), esp. in a dictionary.
So if marriage now says:
marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
and is changed to say:
The formal union of a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
doesn't that redefine it? What am I missing here?
Separate, but equal didn't fail because of segregation in itself. It failed because things were not equal. Blacks did not have access to equal treatment, services, etc under law...so that comparison doesn't wash.
Sorry, but it is redefining it. Expanding it also redefines it.
define: Give the meaning of (a word or phrase), esp. in a dictionary.
So if marriage now says:
marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
and is changed to say:
The formal union of a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
doesn't that redefine it? What am I missing here?
Separate, but equal didn't fail because of segregation in itself. It failed because things were not equal. Blacks did not have access to equal treatment, services, etc under law...so that comparison doesn't wash.
I'm not in anyway suggesting things were equal in the south, of course they weren't. But that isn't the point. The whole concept of separate but equal is just plain wrong and not actually equal the whole separate things takes the equal out of the equation since its well separate. The whole concept of separate whether it be race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, etc is just plain sickening.
Expanding something doesn't mean changing the definition of its, its just giving more people access.
Ahh...so now we come to the real argument. The fight isn't for full rights, the fight is that gays should be allowed to get married since heteros can.
Huh? That is what it's always been about - gays being allowed to contract civil marriages since heteros can. It's been about equal rights and equal treatment under the law.
Huh? That is what it's always been about - gays being allowed to contract civil marriages since heteros can. It's been about equal rights and equal treatment under the law.
Nah. I've argued this whole thread that gays should be allowed the same rights as married couples in their civil unions. If civil unions don't allow this now, then those laws should be changed/redefined. Folks have breathed down my neck saying that it wasn't good enough.
So this isn't about rights...it's about hurt feelings about the US' unwillingness to redefine marriage. Marriage represents the union between a man and a woman...period. To redefine this to include gay people would redefine the very foundation of what marriage is.
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.
