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.
Heterosexuals don't own the word and to assign a different word, or set of words, such as "civil union," to a legal union between gays sets the two apart - makes them different, separate.
And separate is NOT equal.
"Marriage" is what it is - and "marriage" is what it will be called, whether you like it or not.
Get over it.
Let them call their civil union a marriage then. I don't care what gays choose to call it.
Get over it? Does this mean I am not entitled to an opinion different from yours?
Get over it? Does this mean I am not entitled to an opinion different from yours?
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.
But when you have 58% of the population overall, and around 80% of those under thirty, supporting marriage equality, and it is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and there is every indication that more are soon to follow, then, yes, you have to get over the fact that it could very well be legal eventually, if not sooner, in all fifty states.
And that, in the eyes of the LAW, it will be called "marriage."
The 1st amendment protects religious people. in shul/mosque/church, in their house, in the street, in their business even in if it's a public accommodation.
NOW, who is going to take that kind of JOY away from someone that gets married? How on EARTH can YOUR marrying someone be diminished by someone else marrying? There's something somewhere I'm not quite understanding about your comment concerning how gays being allowed to marry will diminish marriage.
Obviously it won't in any way.
The fact is, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever--not one--to oppose same sex marriage that doesn't arise from hatred, ignorance, bigotry, fear, or some combination of those things.
To preclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely upon their gender is the very definition of bigotry and discrimination. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, the combining of the sexes, husband and wife, bride and groom. Period. Anything else is invalid. Not so difficult to understand is it?
Fortunately, this is nothing but simply your simple opinion.
Fortunately, in the near future this kind of bigoted, backwards thinking will appear as silly and hateful and baseless as that with which the bigots of previous decades railed against interracial marriage.
Your point is irrelevant, as it already happens with straight marriage. People marry for green cards, tax breaks, legal protection for their children, money, etc.
But when you have 58% of the population overall, and around 80% of those under thirty, supporting marriage equality, and it is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and there is every indication that more are soon to follow, then, yes, you have to get over the fact that it could very well be legal eventually, if not sooner, in all fifty states.
And that, in the eyes of the LAW, it will be called "marriage."
That is what you have to "get over."
Don't like it? Fine.
But you still have to accept it as LAW.
First off I think those stats are a big fat lie. I believe many Americans aren't opposed to a civil union for gays but not a traditional marriage and that is the difference.
The fact is, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever--not one--to oppose same sex marriage that doesn't arise from hatred, ignorance, bigotry, fear, or some combination of those things.
To preclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely upon their gender is the very definition of bigotry and discrimination. Period.
Fortunately, this is nothing but simply your simple opinion.
Fortunately, in the near future this kind of bigoted, backwards thinking will appear as silly and hateful and baseless as that with which the bigots of previous decades railed against interracial marriage.
Why do you feel the need to hurl insults at those who don't agree with you such as calling them bigots, haters and stupid? Is that really necessary in a debate?
Interacial marriage was still a marriage between a man and a woman so your analogy fails. Sure there were many that opposed that also but there is still no comparison.
First off I think those stats are a big fat lie. I believe many Americans aren't opposed to a civil union for gays but not a traditional marriage and that is the difference.
I can see that your one of those that dis-believes the polls that don't fit your opinion, gay marriage, amnesty, etc? Some of the civil union only supporters are coming to the realization that civil unions will not necessarily equal full-marriage equality.
Because then they'd be tempted to come out of the closet themselves. Or they're afraid their spouse would.
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.
