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.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
They're citizens of this country and want the same rights that other citizens have. What's so incomprehensible about that? In this country, we call it "marriage." Period. That's the vernacular. Regardless of whether the ceremony is performed by a clergyman in a church or by a justice of the peace in a courthouse, we still call it marriage.
What's incomprehensible to me is how any American gets off telling another American, "No, you can't have the same rights I have because the bible says homosexuality is a sin." The bible has no place in American rule of law. None. And a gay couple's marriage does not diminish, in any way, a heterosexual couple's marriage.
I'm not gay and couldn't care less what term is used, but it infuriates me that we, as a nation, continue to deny equal rights to a portion of our citizenry. Some states DO have civil-union laws, and that's great, but at the same time, those civil unions are essentially meaningless. Because of the federal Defense of Marriage act, same-sex couples who have entered into a civil union do NOT have the same rights that their heterosexual married counterparts have. And same-sex couples who have entered into a civil union cannot move to a different state and have their "marriage" travel with them. How does that make sense? How is that right or fair or decent?
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
I think it is an issue of many fronts. The powerhouses of religion and politics just beat it with sledgehammers. It's just like any other turning point issue we've had. It was a really radical proposition back in the day for women to be able to vote. It has been a wild proposition to think of minorities and women as human beings. Like anything else, this will come to pass as people realize that gays are people too.
There were all kinds of legitimate, long standing reasons to do the same to them back then. the churches and the politicians alike churned out ton after ton after ton of reasons why things should remain as they are. And I think that's what this is really about - maintaining the status quo. I think it's an issue let people be people instead of who you* want them to be. Because I'm willing to bet that at some point this standard will fall just like the previous ones that I mentioned.
As far as marriage being a religious term, I don't know. I know that marriage is a legal recognition as well. I mean if it was strictly a religious definition, would that mean that Atheists that get married don't have a legitimate marriage? What about people who move here from non-Christian countries like India? Do we not recognize that marriage?
*I mean you in the general sense - I'm not trying to get personal here
I think it is an issue of many fronts. The powerhouses of religion and politics just beat it with sledgehammers. It's just like any other turning point issue we've had. It was a really radical proposition back in the day for women to be able to vote. It has been a wild proposition to think of minorities and women as human beings. Like anything else, this will come to pass as people realize that gays are people too.
There were all kinds of legitimate, long standing reasons to do the same to them back then. the churches and the politicians alike churned out ton after ton after ton of reasons why things should remain as they are. And I think that's what this is really about - maintaining the status quo. I think it's an issue let people be people instead of who you* want them to be. Because I'm willing to bet that at some point this standard will fall just like the previous ones that I mentioned.
As far as marriage being a religious term, I don't know. I know that marriage is a legal recognition as well. I mean if it was strictly a religious definition, would that mean that Atheists that get married don't have a legitimate marriage? What about people who move here from non-Christian countries like India? Do we not recognize that marriage?
*I mean you in the general sense - I'm not trying to get personal here
It is not about marriage. Most gays do not want to get married, just look around the world and see countries that allow gay marriage, the percentage is very low of gays marrying and with good reason because gays like their lifestyle much like their straight counterparts; marriage is too confining and restrictive.
Do you have any cite for this? I know many gay's and they would get married if they could. Also EVERY gay I know would tell you point blank they do not have a lifestyle, they have a LIFE - just the same as you.
Quote:
This is about acceptance. Marriage is pretty much the last obstacle in making homosexuality a very much right, accepted, normal behaviour in our society.
Insert black for homosexuality and tell me how ridiculous that argument sounds.
Quote:
The problem with this thinking is gay individuals have the right to marry just like everyone else.
Oh horrors, people wanted to be treated as equal. Next women will want the same individual rights as men, blacks as whites, disabled as abled... what will society become?
Personally I could care less if it's called marriage or whatever. My partner and I have no desire to put on tuxes and flush money down a huge wedding drain. We just want the rights. Although I do know gay couples who were into the whole ceremony thing - just sayin' it's not our thing.
The ceremony can be a beautiful celebration of love, and I'd be a complete 'cad' (for lack of a better word ) to want to deny anyone that luxury.
Since it's called a 'wedding ceremony' would it be too much to call themselves "Wed"? As in, "We are wed" as opposed to, "We are married".
Or am I just trying to justify my selfish desire to keep the words 'marriage', 'marry', and 'married' to heterosexual couples?
Because, like I said, I feel the definition of 'marriage' is the union of one man and one woman.
I know we can pull up a different definition from Webster these days. But let's admit that dictionaries are always being revised.
Cool
Hot
Sick
etc, etc, etc...
It is not about marriage. Most gays do not want to get married, just look around the world and see countries that allow gay marriage, the percentage is very low of gays marrying and with good reason because gays like their lifestyle much like their straight counterparts; marriage is too confining and restrictive.
This is about acceptance. Marriage is pretty much the last obstacle in making homosexuality a very much right, accepted, normal behaviour in our society.
The problem with this thinking is gay individuals have the right to marry just like everyone else.
I wouldn't say that Gays don't want to get married, I mean isn't that what the hubbub is all about?
Let's assume for a moment that it is about acceptance. Homosexuality has been a theme in humanity ever since the beginning. And despite all the efforts against it, gay people still do their thing, just like they have done for thousands of years. Isn't that a norm? It may not be normal for everyone, but all through history is has been normal for homosexuals to exist. What would be so bad about accepting what they do? You don't have to respect it, or do it but it isn't something that's going away. And whether it's a choice or nature, gay people are going to do their thing.
The people that make a society are going to do things that other members do not agree with. What's so hard about accepting that?
I wouldn't say that Gays don't want to get married, I mean isn't that what the hubbub is all about?
Let's assume for a moment that it is about acceptance. Homosexuality has been a theme in humanity ever since the beginning. And despite all the efforts against it, gay people still do their thing, just like they have done for thousands of years. Isn't that a norm? It may not be normal for everyone, but all through history is has been normal for homosexuals to exist. What would be so bad about accepting what they do? You don't have to respect it, or do it but it isn't something that's going away. And whether it's a choice or nature, gay people are going to do their thing.
The people that make a society are going to do things that other members do not agree with. What's so hard about accepting that?
(I chose you randomly to ask this....)
If gay marriage is passed, do you have a problem with polygamy also being legalized? I mean why not..... who cares, besides the church and the insurance companies perhaps?
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
Heres the argument.
Marriage is a religious term, and should be simply a religious ceremony. HOWEVER, The state has deemed it to be a social contract, with legal rights associated with the term.
The state can not discriminate against anyone one social, sexual, or racial group. So that is why homosexuals are fighting for their right to "marry".
My argument is, that marriage should be completely removed from the state. The state shouldn't marry anyone, or acknowledge anyones marriage through a church. The state should only give out civil unions, for everyone. Marriage is something you do at your church, and it should afford you no rights in a court of law.
That would shoot the whole thing dead in the water. The problem is, religious organizations like having a legal power, although it is prohibitied in our constitution under the idea of a seperation of church and state.
Marriage is a religious term, and should be simply a religious ceremony. HOWEVER, The state has deemed it to be a social contract, with legal rights associated with the term.
The state can not discriminate against anyone one social, sexual, or racial group. So that is why homosexuals are fighting for their right to "marry".
My argument is, that marriage should be completely removed from the state. The state shouldn't marry anyone, or acknowledge anyones marriage through a church. The state should only give out civil unions, for everyone. Marriage is something you do at your church, and it should afford you no rights in a court of law.
That would shoot the whole thing dead in the water. The problem is, religious organizations like having a legal power, although it is prohibitied in our constitution under the idea of a seperation of church and state.
There's alot of logic in your argument. These issues are going to have addressed in the near future (especially if were alive after the 2012 winter solstice (I would like to put "lol" but who knows).
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.
) to want to deny anyone that luxury.
