What is the definition of marriage? (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California)
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.
It's only different now because one is not allowed. Once gay marriage becomes legalized and recognized people won't say that someone got gay married or had a gay marriage, people will just be married. Your "gotcha" distinction is irrelevant and non-applicable
It is not a "gotcha" anything, marriage either has certain distinctions or else it is not marriage. When you modify it by interjecting "gay" or "same-sex" it becomes something that it is not, thus negating the outcry for equality for any of the other false justifications the "gay marriage" advocates proport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
In states where it is legal, there is no such thing as a "gay" marriage. Everyone gets the same license.
Like I said about Canada, they created their own definition of what they consider marriage. Modifying the institution essentially destroys it.
I am not doing that nor have I ever done that, you questioned my faith and the official teachings of my Church so it is my duty to inform you properly. If I am doing something that is incorrect I would hope that you'd be kind enough to correct me, it is the friendly thing to do
Well I do not desire that the laws regarding marriage be changed so to reflect the desires of "gay marriage" advocates, hence my previous statements about lobbying which oh BTW wouldn't be necessary if the "gay marriage" advocates had not lobbied against them in the first place. It goes both ways you know, just like biases.
If there were truly no distinction between marriage and "gay marriage" then would there be any need for the "gay" modifier?
There is a modifier, it is called saying spouse 1 and spouse 2. that way there is no mention of gay in the marriage certificate. Our marriage certificate says that. It is not singling out anyone, nor does it impact heterosexual marriage. All we want is the fair and equal access to laws and benifits that have nothing to do with religion, but with marriage rights. It is called gay marriage, but is really the inclusion of gays in the civil union process. The uniterian church welcomes gay people and wants to marry them, yet it is other churches enforcing their belief system upon them. How does my marriage impact yours? It is your marriages that impact mine, I cannot access the same rights or benifits, have to go through undue recourses to get a fraction of the protections provided by a civil union certificate and undue costs. My marriage does not define yours nor does it redefine it, neither did interracial marriage redefine the marriages of same race to same race couples, it was just an inclusion. That is all we want, to be included and not forbidden or banned. How would you like it if the majority of the populace determined that you do not deserve the same rights?
It is not a "gotcha" anything, marriage either has certain distinctions or else it is not marriage. When you modify it by interjecting "gay" or "same-sex" it becomes something that it is not, thus negating the outcry for equality for any of the other false justifications the "gay marriage" advocates proport.
Like I said about Canada, they created their own definition of what they consider marriage. Modifying the institution essentially destroys it.
Divorce modifies a marriage, yet you have that option, don't you? Why not fight against it, since more children are impacted by it then by same sex marriages being included.
It is not a "gotcha" anything, marriage either has certain distinctions or else it is not marriage. When you modify it by interjecting "gay" or "same-sex" it becomes something that it is not, thus negating the outcry for equality for any of the other false justifications the "gay marriage" advocates proport.
Like I said about Canada, they created their own definition of what they consider marriage. Modifying the institution essentially destroys it.
So then the institution of Marriage is already destroyed.
Interracial Marriage came and went and no horrible things happened. It had specific distinctions that modified the current definition of marriage and so by your line of thought the institution of marriage is already finished
Over 50% on this poll support same sex marriage and over 9% support the law a state adopts, less than 40% decree it be only between a man and woman. I am in support of moving forward and not retrograde into a country with un equal laws and un equal citizens because of those laws. When blacks fought for their right to marry the person they loved, we marched with them, fought with them for those equal rights, but we got left behind, told that we do not deserve the same rights. DOMA is direct evidence of it, a law to single us out and deny us equal protections, equal access to the law of this nation.
It is not a "gotcha" anything, marriage either has certain distinctions or else it is not marriage. When you modify it by interjecting "gay" or "same-sex" it becomes something that it is not, thus negating the outcry for equality for any of the other false justifications the "gay marriage" advocates proport.
Like I said about Canada, they created their own definition of what they consider marriage. Modifying the institution essentially destroys it.
Like I said about Canada, they created their own definition of what they consider marriage. Modifying the institution essentially destroys it.
In what way has marriage in Canada been "destroyed"? Are men and women no longer allowed to marry? Are their marriages somehow not worth as much now? Have divorce rates gone up?
In what way has marriage in Canada been "destroyed"? Are men and women no longer allowed to marry? Are their marriages somehow not worth as much now? Have divorce rates gone up?
Please clarify what you mean by this.
These people must have such pathetic marriages if all the meaning and value of their relationship crumbles just because a couple on the other side of the country gets married.
No wonder their divorce rates are so high. Their marriages a giant shams with sand foundations.
Interracial Marriage came and went and no horrible things happened. It had specific distinctions that modified the current definition of marriage and so by your line of thought the institution of marriage is already finished
Interracial marriage has been a legal reality for thousands of years, despite rare interruptions, and has never been doctrinally forbidden by the Church.
My dear fellow Americans: the world did not begin at Philadelphia in 1776, or at Woodstock in 1969; nor are quirky American laws capable of modifying the true nature of marriage.
Interracial marriage has been a legal reality for thousands of years, despite rare interruptions, and has never been doctrinally forbidden by the Church.
My dear fellow Americans: the world did not begin at Philadelphia in 1776, or at Woodstock in 1969; nor are quirky American laws capable of modifying the true nature of marriage.
Those of us who do not believe in your church doctrine are not required to live by it. This is a secular country not a theocracy
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.
