How do you feel about same-sex marriage? (Oregon, murder, Muslim)
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.
This thread is titled "How do you feel about same-sex marriage". Why am I being lambasted for stating my view?
I've already agreed that religion should not be the deciding factor in the matter. I do, however, object to redefining marriage. All of the previous examples (interracial marriage, ownership, etc) does nothing to disprove the fact that marriage has always been about a union between a man and a woman. That's the bottom line and I greatly oppose changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Seriously...if you're allowed all of the rights of married couples, by way of civil unions, why is that an insult?
What specifically do you believe will happen to marriage if gay unions are also called marriages?
Did you even read my post before your outrage kicked in? I said that even absent the religious component, marriage has been a man/woman union. Can you provide reputable evidence to the contrary?
Other people already did. Again, you change the goalposts.
OK...I see where we're differing. I read PP's post to mean
Civil unions-for those who want to form a union, outside of religion
Marriage-for those who seek a religious union.
(please correct me if I'm wrong, LS Jaun).
If this is LS Jaun's stance, then I also agree.
I'm fine with that too. Civil marriages and religious (or otherwise traditional) marriages are separate, unrelated things. I could care less what people call their personal relationships - whether they chose to have them ordained within a religion or not. If some Church wants to call the relationship between 5 men, 1 woman, a cat and her desklamp a marriage, then good for them. If another Church wants to stop using the term marriage and call the committed relationships between one man and one women "holy breeding coupling", I say fantastic.
But when it comes to our civil law, it should be applied equally to all and it shouldn't have different names based simply on some classification (black, white, gay, straight, christian, muslim, atheist, etc) of person availing himself to it.
And I stand by my statement (although you wrote it wrong). The Civil Rights movement is not comparable to the gays current issue re: marriage. It just isn't. There are many civil rights issues that have happened throughout US history (the woman's right to vote for one), yet only the Civil Rights Movement is used to draw a comparison. It's wrong and it's insulting. Perhaps I'll lighten up when you show me proof that gays:
-were enslaved for hundreds of years in the US
-were ripped from their families, sold off, raped by their masters, etc
-were subjected to govt-sanctioned Jim Crow laws
Can you do any of that?
This idea of making an argument that who has had it worst in history makes their position better for equality may be the most dishonest, ridiculous argument ever made for any reason.
Gays have been killed all over the world for centuries. They were part of the deaths in the Holocaust. They are routinely murdered in the 3rd World or in strict theocracies like the Middle East. Even countries much nearer to the US, like Jamaica, turn a complete blind eye to gays being discriminated against and outright murdered. But none of that matters to the point of whether or not they deserve equal protections and rights under the law of the US.
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.
You are completely ignorant on this topic. First, even if individual states provided full state benefits to civil unions, the FEDERAL government would not, as they do not recognize *any* gay marriages/unions at all. The ONLY two ways to make the two equal is to have the federal government allow gay marriage OR to call *all* marriages civil unions. How often are you going to continually ignore the reality of how things are to keep believing in your own superiority over another minority group? It's pretty disgusting.
If same sex “marriage” is so wanted and desired by worldwide society we would have it by now. Where is it? Where is the OWS equivalent of people protesting in the streets rioting for homosexual marriage? It isn’t there is it? Nope. Not there.
What cave do you live in?
Are you completely and totally ignorant of what is going on in the outside world? HUH ???
Let me show you ... here is a picture taken in New York this past June around the time the New York Legislature legalized same sex marriage.
BTW ... the LGBT civil rights movement is WAY WAY WAY bigger than OWS.
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.
OK...I see where we're differing. I read PP's post to mean
Civil unions-for those who want to form a union, outside of religion Marriage-for those who seek a religious union.
(please correct me if I'm wrong, LS Jaun).
If this is LS Jaun's stance, then I also agree.
That was my stance on it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I'm fine with that too. Civil marriages and religious (or otherwise traditional) marriages are separate, unrelated things. I could care less what people call their personal relationships - whether they chose to have them ordained within a religion or not. If some Church wants to call the relationship between 5 men, 1 woman, a cat and her desklamp a marriage, then good for them. If another Church wants to stop using the term marriage and call the committed relationships between one man and one women "holy breeding coupling", I say fantastic.
But when it comes to our civil law, it should be applied equally to all and it shouldn't have different names based simply on some classification (black, white, gay, straight, christian, muslim, atheist, etc) of person availing himself to it.
"5 men, 1 woman, a cat and her desklamp"
I'm fine with 5 men, 1 woman and the lamp, but the Cat can't legally consent and therefore should be exempt from participating in the: As you said "holy breeding coupling"
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.
