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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:43 PM
 
46 posts, read 66,212 times
Reputation: 21

Advertisements

Ok, I have been having this conversation with friends both gay and straight and we are divided about 50/50 so here goes...

Marriage has a definition of a union between a man and a woman. The man is then given the title of husband and the woman the title of wife. Don't think there is any disagreement on those definitions.

Now, for years gays have lobbied for the same rights as "married" couples. They have argued for the right to be "married" with all of the legal and social rights that come with that union.

The other side argues that they can not be married because they are of the same sex and therefore biblicially and "socially" unable to meet the definition of "married." And, that it is impossible for a woman to assume the role of "husband" and a man to assume the role of a "wife" because they are by gender not the same.

So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:48 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,078,020 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisyrlm View Post
Ok, I have been having this conversation with friends both gay and straight and we are divided about 50/50 so here goes...

Marriage has a definition of a union between a man and a woman. The man is then given the title of husband and the woman the title of wife. Don't think there is any disagreement on those definitions.

Now, for years gays have lobbied for the same rights as "married" couples. They have argued for the right to be "married" with all of the legal and social rights that come with that union.

The other side argues that they can not be married because they are of the same sex and therefore biblicially and "socially" unable to meet the definition of "married." And, that it is impossible for a woman to assume the role of "husband" and a man to assume the role of a "wife" because they are by gender not the same.

So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
Your religious definition of marriage might be as you say above. However, this debate is about civil marriage - and civil marriage is defined by however the law is written. Gay couples simply want equal access to and equal treatment under the law - whatever it's titled. Gay people should not be denied equal rights simply because of the wording choice used in crafting civil law. Whether it's called "civil marriage", "civil union", "legal partnership", etc doesn't matter - the Constitution requires that all be treated equally under it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:52 PM
 
9,848 posts, read 8,268,824 times
Reputation: 3296
I think the costant forcing of this issue on the 99% of the mainstream population is going to set back any strides made by gays for acceptace the last 25 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:55 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,078,020 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I think the costant forcing of this issue on the 99% of the mainstream population is going to set back any strides made by gays for acceptace the last 25 years.
Forcing the issue on people? I'm unaware of us gays forcing gay marriages onto anybody. Has it happened to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:55 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,919,820 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisyrlm View Post
Ok, I have been having this conversation with friends both gay and straight and we are divided about 50/50 so here goes...

Marriage has a definition of a union between a man and a woman. The man is then given the title of husband and the woman the title of wife. Don't think there is any disagreement on those definitions.

Now, for years gays have lobbied for the same rights as "married" couples. They have argued for the right to be "married" with all of the legal and social rights that come with that union.

The other side argues that they can not be married because they are of the same sex and therefore biblicially and "socially" unable to meet the definition of "married." And, that it is impossible for a woman to assume the role of "husband" and a man to assume the role of a "wife" because they are by gender not the same.

So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
Yes..... And with simply using some other word....

I have been married twice and so far I see no legal and social rights/advantage from the Govt for being so... Just getting out of the 1st was pure Govt Hell and I almost didn't go for marriage 2. I was quite content living in SIN.....

In upper New England anyway we do not make much if any public display of anything... I will be unhappy to see gays overly active in any public places... Holding hands is about my limit in public places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:59 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,627,220 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisyrlm View Post
So, here is the question...do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like? Do you think we get hung up on the word rather than the rights they are seeking?
No. Republican governors and legislators have rejected civil unions for same-sex couples even when it's been attempted in place of same-sex marriage. I'm so sick of people who are uneducated about this.

GOP kills civil unions in Colorado special session - Yahoo! News

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoes civil unions bill - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Indiana Senate Approves Civil Union Ban | Advocate.com

There are nineteen states that have banned civil unions for same-sex couples. I just wonder how many of you voted for those bans, but then come here and whine, "If the gays would just accept a word other than marriage, I'd support it."

Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 08-07-2012 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,165,148 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I think the costant forcing of this issue on the 99% of the mainstream population is going to set back any strides made by gays for acceptace the last 25 years.
So we should sit back, hide in the closet, and gratefully lap up the scraps you decide we should have?

Sorry, but no thanks. I am an American citizen, and I will not settle for less than equal treatment by our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:07 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,627,220 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I think the costant forcing of this issue on the 99% of the mainstream population is going to set back any strides made by gays for acceptace the last 25 years.
No. What's going to happen is that the old, anti-gay bigots are going to continue to die off, and the country will continue to become more gay-friendly, as has been happening for the last 40 years. There's no sign that younger people are becoming less gay-friendly as they get older. It's the older people who adopted anti-gay sentiments many years ago, and are too crusty and rigid to change their minds.

U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal

Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 08-07-2012 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:10 PM
 
Location: TX
6,486 posts, read 6,371,847 times
Reputation: 2628
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisyrlm View Post
do you think this argument could have been won long ago had gay activists dropped the word "marriage" from their arguments and instead chose another word or phrase, something like "legal partnership" or the like?
Maybe, but I also think the argument could've been resolved if those against calling it "marriage" would've given in instead. As you seem to be admitting, it's just a word. So it really doesn't matter too much either way.

So who should cave? Well...

It takes less ink, space on paper, and time to type/say "marriage" than "legal partnership" or "civil union". That's about as good a thing as anything to break the tie. Problem solved! Everyone get back to your Farmville!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,209,589 times
Reputation: 16939
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
I think the costant forcing of this issue on the 99% of the mainstream population is going to set back any strides made by gays for acceptace the last 25 years.
This could be simply solved by the state authorizing a civil union with ALL the rights of marriage to any consenting adults. You can't marry your offspring and you can't marry someone underage. All the rules you need. Any children, adopted or by birth, are required to supported. Then go get married with a church or drive through if you want. Call marriage what you want. Make it a non-legal term. Quit deciding for others what they choices in companionship they can have because if your church doesn't want to do same sex they can, but someone will.

If the civil union is all you need then don't get 'married' but you have full rights, including survior rights, and medical authority.

I think that except for a vocal and bigoted segment of extremists who are religiously motivated most of the mainstream population either support the right for choice and full rights or doesn't reallly care.
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 02:14 AM.

© 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