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.
Marriage is being reduced to a meaningless, empty, function devoid of value that was once treasured and considered something special by society only to have everything that it once represented modified and redefined away just to accommodate a militant 3% of the population for whom the unification of the two sexes was never intended or able to accommodate anyway.
News flash. The fact is a whole lot of straight people have gotten married and did not "value" it. Neither did they treat the institution as something special and to be treasured. Were that true the divorce rate would be zero.
Meanwhile they are gays who WANT to give meaning to and treasure their relationship by being married.
So here's the thing: it's more than possible that the very people you don't want to see married may just be the ones who bring meaning back to it. Because, sorry, gays and lesbians can also be loving, committed people. And militant? Lol. The gay marriage backers who just VOTED for it can hardly be described as militant.
Oh please if YOU want to get married and have kids then knock yourself out.
But you don't have any right to tell other people how to live their lives...
But it does require an alteration of language, as we have seen. I predict that "husband" and "wife" will effectively be banned in many spheres such as workplace, school, and government(and gov't occupies an ever-bigger pct of existence). With the threat of someone crying 'hate speech,' it will be easier just to expunge these words, especially from the workplace where lawsuits are always a worry.
What gives you the right to tell other people how they must speak and write (when in these spheres) when they have spoken and written otherwise for several thousand years?
How about just using the word "marklar"? I take that word from an episode of "South Park".
While at first there may be a bit of a sneer at using something from a cartoon, the definition giving in that episode is this: "Here on Marklar (the planet they live on), we use the word Marklar to describe any person, place, or thing."
How could anyone be offended by using a word that doesn't have any preconceived definition?
This is probably the best answer to this controversy. Government should never have gotten involved with what historically was usually a religious institution. Change the laws so that government benefits and whatnot apply to civil unions and leave marriage as a religious institution. Churches could then decide whether or not to marry homosexuals.
Obviously, this is easier said than done.
All legally recognized marriages are already civil unions legalized by the federal government. Government got involved to avoid the problem of churches determining who can marry and who cannot marry and what church it could be performed in. Churches already do not have to perform any marriage they choose to not perform, if they do not want to perform an interracial marriage or gay marriage or a marriage of divorced people, that is their their choice. Allowing gays to marry will not change that one bit. Marriage does not belong to the church, it belongs to the couple getting married, the church and courts are only conduits to that union. The simplest way to institute gays getting married is to just make the legal basis of marriage include gay couples too. It is simply marriage, whether it is gay or straight, a union of two people who love each other, are committed to their union and want to make it official and legal.
Yet another heterosexual who thinks they are speaking for gay people...
I'd like to know how you came to your conclusion that gay marriage is not about gays getting married...?
I don't claim to speak for gay people. That is why I mentioned in my post that I don't even know that many gay people. Where in my post did I claim to speak for gay people, seattlerain?
I do, however, know many heterosexual liberals in RL and that is how I came to my conclusion: by detecting their nasty, holier-than-thou attitudes towards people who are not like them.
So it's the just the straight white liberal hipsters who have the "love gay people" attitude that bother you. What about the straight, middle-of-the-road, old guy who has been married to the same woman for 30 years and thinks gays should be allowed to marry? If he doesn't bother you I'm sending an urgent email to the LGBT people and let them know how they can change their strategy in their efforts to make sure everyone in this country enjoys equal rights as citizens.
DewDropInn, just an FYI -- I support most gay rights and I take a libertarian stance on gay marriage. Did you see the comment in my post "leave gay people alone"??
Yes, it would be a good strategy, but I don't see that happening since the snotty liberals have already co-opted the agenda and made it "their" issue.
And yet it is the gay community that is so presumptuous that they demand that we must endorse their relationships. Why don't you keep your intentions in your house?
Why don't you keep your bible intentions to yourself instead of forcing your beliefs upon the rest of society regardless of their religious affilliations or non beliefs. Religion has tried over and over to force their morals upon all of us and it fails each time. Religion and tyranny often go hand in hand.
But it does require an alteration of language, as we have seen. I predict that "husband" and "wife" will effectively be banned in many spheres such as workplace, school, and government(and gov't occupies an ever-bigger pct of existence). With the threat of someone crying 'hate speech,' it will be easier just to expunge these words, especially from the workplace where lawsuits are always a worry.
What gives you the right to tell other people how they must speak and write (when in these spheres) when they have spoken and written otherwise for several thousand years?
A male will still be a husband, and a female will still be a wife.
I will be a wife, and I will have a wife.
My friend will be a husband, and have a husband.
My other friend will be a wife, and have a husband.
The only change is on a legal document. No one is telling you how you have to label yourself.
If an anti-gay person needs the words "husband" and "wife" on a government application for marriage in order to feel legitimate, I'd say your marriage is doomed.
Now we've spoken before and got along just fine so, why would you say something like this? You wouldn't like it if anti-gay person said something similar about a same sex couple.
The homosexual doesn’t want “equality” instead the homosexual wants marriage redefined and expanded for everyone in society so that it is no longer a man and a woman. Homosexualized “marriage” will never be the equivalent equal to man / woman marriage because homosexuals are unable to become husband and wife i.e. the unification of the two sexes.
Why don't you stop with your made up word, homosexualized. You want to religiousize marriage to creat only religious straight marriages. Have your church wedding, it is not legal without the federal civil marriage certificate anyway.
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.
