Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which do you think should happen?
Marriage for all. 45 52.33%
Civil unions for all. 8 9.30%
No government recognition. 22 25.58%
Other. Please explain. 11 12.79%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2012, 10:26 AM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,371,847 times
Reputation: 2628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
But the rest of you are just feeling around in the dark. You don't like it, therefore it's wrong. Not good enough.
Ohh the irony...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
Earth to Steve:
IT IS ALREADY LEGAL FOR A 65 YEAR OLD MAN TO MARRY A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL

YOU are the one touting the moronic logic that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to this. Well, obviously, since it already exists as a legality than the marriage laws YOU LIKE have led to it. Well, by what you're trying to pass off as 'logic', anyway.
That's not to mention that his argument's regarding what is/was considered "taboo", when a grown man marrying a child is considered more taboo now than it was back in the day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2012, 01:25 PM
Status: "Wishing all the best of health and peace!" (set 10 days ago)
 
43,459 posts, read 44,172,248 times
Reputation: 20474
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhawkins74 View Post
sure, leave marriage between a man and a woman, and let there be civil unions for everyone else. I have no problems with them having the same benefits, my problem is with the term marriage being used for anything other then a man and a woman.
Under the definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman, everyone already has equal rights. Every single person (who is legally an adult) in the USA can marry someone of the opposite sex assuming that they want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,165,148 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Under the definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman, everyone already has equal rights. Every single person (who is legally an adult) in the USA can marry someone of the opposite sex assuming that they want to.
Which dictionary are you using?
All of the major ones have been updated to include same sex marriage, including Blacks law dictionary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: West Egg
2,160 posts, read 1,950,727 times
Reputation: 1297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Under the definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman, everyone already has equal rights. Every single person (who is legally an adult) in the USA can marry someone of the opposite sex assuming that they want to.
I certainly hope opponents of same-sex marriage are dumb enough to make this argument when the issue comes before the United States Supreme Court.

After all, that was exactly the case Virginia made in Loving v. Virgina (1967) during briefs and oral arguments. Virginia argued that everyone was equally entitled to marry someone of the same race. The high court pointed out that this didn't change the fact that barring interracial marriages was, on each individual basis, discrimination based on race. And creating an institution designed to cater to the orientation of heterosexuals is specifically discriminatory against homosexuals (not to mention, on an individual basis, gender discrimination).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 04:48 PM
Status: "Wishing all the best of health and peace!" (set 10 days ago)
 
43,459 posts, read 44,172,248 times
Reputation: 20474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Which dictionary are you using?
All of the major ones have been updated to include same sex marriage, including Blacks law dictionary.
Actually this was the original definition of the word marriage. Perhaps another word should be used for the union of people of the same sex (that would convey the same idea) and that would help avoid all this controversy. BTW, I have a Cambridge Dictionary of American English from 2008 which defines marriage as "a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife or the official ceremony which results in this."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,165,148 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Actually this was the original definition of the word marriage. Perhaps another word should be used for the union of people of the same sex (that would convey the same idea) and that would help avoid all this controversy. BTW, I have a Cambridge Dictionary of American English from 2008 which defines marriage as "a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife or the official ceremony which results in this."
In case you didn't know, language changes with society.
We use many words now that once meant something different.

Would you be happy with civil unions for all? Seeing as how the government can't discriminate without a compelling reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,165,148 times
Reputation: 9895
I can't believe that 17 people are willing to give up their civil marriage, and all the rights, and protections that go with it.

Why hasn't someone started a movement for this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:24 PM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,371,847 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Actually this was the original definition of the word marriage. Perhaps another word should be used for the union of people of the same sex (that would convey the same idea) and that would help avoid all this controversy. BTW, I have a Cambridge Dictionary of American English from 2008 which defines marriage as "a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife or the official ceremony which results in this."
Definitions of words change as lexicographers learn better uses for them. This is a perfect example. Most people today understand that the defining aspect of a marriage is not whether the two people happen to be different sexes, but the level of commitment present between the two that binds them in a close union. Moving as one, as they say.

Of course, the government being involved and the entire legal aspect of marriage makes it seem more like a business arrangement, IMO. But that, while ALSO applicable to two men or two women agreeing to such an arrangement, is a whole other story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Location: West Egg
2,160 posts, read 1,950,727 times
Reputation: 1297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Actually this was the original definition of the word marriage. Perhaps another word should be used for the union of people of the same sex (that would convey the same idea) and that would help avoid all this controversy. BTW, I have a Cambridge Dictionary of American English from 2008 which defines marriage as "a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife or the official ceremony which results in this."
Yes, because civil unions are universally supported.

Oh, wait... they aren't. The National Organization for Marriage vocally and financially opposes them (you apparently missed NOM this spring as it busily helped kill the Colorado civil unions bill). The apparent GOP nominee for President opposes civil unions (a stance he reiterated when President Obama recently came out in favor of same-sex marriage).

Dictionaries recognize same-sex marriage. - Slate Magazine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2012, 08:39 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
Marriage benefits are just slowly going to go away. We are moving to an "everyone for themselves" world and whoever you choose to be with won't matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top