Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[froedrick]

The term "Marriage" is an abused word and ideal that hold little to no merits other than ceremonial, religious and a spouses rites upon hospitalization

But the thing is 404 while religious reasons may not matter to you or me. It matters to millions of people in the world. So it is a big deal for someone to use the word 'married'. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but that person is going to be who they are whether or not you or I think it is correct.

[404 Not Found]

But the thing is 404 while religious reasons may not matter to you or me. It matters to millions of people in the world. So it is a big deal for someone to use the word 'married'. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but that person is going to be who they are whether or not you or I think it is correct.

So drop the word "Marriage" from gay couples, but allow the same rites when it comes to hospitalization and insurance rites. I do not really care if the term is not Marriage and I think it is somewhat odd that people require that the term "Marriage" be used over "Civil Union".

It seems that it boils down to the word and not the actual rites of which are creating such a debate. I got married by a J.O.P. and it was not religious by any means, yet I am married...if it was called Civil Union because I wasn't married in a Holy Ceremony, and there was no difference other than the name of which it was conducted, would I care? Absolutey not.

It boils down to equal rites upon a joined couple IMHO. The wording is just a stumbling point as to make argument for one cause vs. the other.

[froedrick]

So drop the word "Marriage" from gay couples, but allow the same rites when it comes to hospitalization and insurance rites. I do not really care if the term is not Marriage and I think it is somewhat odd that people require that the term "Marriage" be used over "Civil Union".

It seems that it boils down to the word and not the actual rites of which are creating such a debate. I got married by a J.O.P. and it was not religious by any means, yet I am married...if it was called Civil Union because I wasn't married in a Holy Ceremony, and there was no difference other than the name of which it was conducted, would I care? Absolutey not.

It boils down to equal rites upon a joined couple IMHO. The wording is just a stumbling point as to make argument for one cause vs. the other.

I think gay people will see it as a problem because you're telling them straight up, 'you cannot use this word to define your coupling'. Which is like you telling me I can't express myself in the words I personally would like to express myself. If you're saying gay people can have 'civil unions' then why limit it to gays and make it completely unbiased and say all married couples as must be deemed as 'civil unions' and not married. But that won't fly, who's going to accept that? Nobody.

So why is it a big deal to say gay people can't use the word marriage?

That's the real question. And the answer is that, some religious people don't approve of homosexuality and don't want to be associated with it. So they will not allow anybody who's gay to get married, or use this title.

This is not about gay people shut up and take what's given to you. They're fighting for what they believe is their right. And to shrug it off and say, be happy with what you have, well that sure in hell isn't an American ideal or a human ideal when you feel that you are being oppressed.


EDIT: I left out a 't

[Vykromond]

So drop the word "Marriage" from gay couples, but allow the same rites when it comes to hospitalization and insurance rites. I do not really care if the term is not Marriage and I think it is somewhat odd that people require that the term "Marriage" be used over "Civil Union".

separate but equal worked out great the last time we tried it

~

If you're saying gay people can have 'civil unions' then why limit it to gays and make it completely unbiased and say all married couples as must be deemed as 'civil unions' and not married.

not just that, the real solution is of course to get government out of the marriage business entirely- which it has no good reason to be in. have churches and other organizations hand out whatever kind of marriage license they want to, and have the federal government certify any stable cohabiting partnership of whatever gender or circumstance with a civil union stamp. no federal marriages, period.

[DankNuggets]

I think gay people will see it as a problem because you're telling them straight up, 'you cannot use this word to define your coupling'. Which is like you telling me I can't express myself in the words I personally would like to express myself. If you're saying gay people can have 'civil unions' then why limit it to gays and make it completely unbiased and say all married couples as must be deemed as 'civil unions' and not married. But that won't fly, who's going to accept that? Nobody.

So why is it a big deal to say gay people can't use the word marriage?

That's the real question. And the answer is that, some religious people don't approve of homosexuality and don't want to be associated with it. So they will not allow anybody who's gay to get married, or use this title.

This is not about gay people shut up and take what's given to you. They're fighting for what they believe is their right. And to shrug it off and say, be happy with what you have, well that sure in hell isn't an American ideal or a human ideal when you feel that you are being oppressed.


EDIT: I left out a 't

Well said. There's nothing that says Christians 'own' the word marriage and can stop other people from using it. They've got just as much of a right to use whatever word they want to use for marriage, and it's up to the state to record, not dictate what they want to call it.

[Fluffz]

So why is it a big deal to say gay people can't use the word marriage?

That's the real question. And the answer is that, some religious people don't approve of homosexuality and don't want to be associated with it. So they will not allow anybody who's gay to get married, or use this title.

The problem is that you guys are biased. You argue for the side of gay people and not for the side of religious people. Those people have rights too and one of them is to define how they want to call a partnership. And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?

Well said. There's nothing that says Christians 'own' the word marriage and can stop other people from using it. They've got just as much of a right to use whatever word they want to use for marriage, and it's up to the state to record, not dictate what they want to call it.

Lets assume we could actually separate every other meaning and have marriage only mean the religious thing while the state refers to every partnership as "Civil Union". Why would the gay people want to call their relationship marriage, they should not give a shit about a word from a church that cant accept them. Sure, they could call it marriage, but for what reason should they? That word would be an insult of their identity. They should try to get church to accept them or do their own thing. But i dont say they shouldnt be allowed to call it marriage, im just thinking it would not make sense from a gay point of view.

[genocidal]

The problem is that you guys are biased. You argue for the side of gay people and not for the side of religious people. Those people have rights too and one of them is to define how they want to call a partnership. And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?

You're fucking kidding me right?

[froedrick]

The problem is that you guys are biased. You argue for the side of gay people and not for the side of religious people. Those people have rights too and one of them is to define how they want to call a partnership. And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?

Lets assume we could actually separate every other meaning and have marriage only mean the religious thing while the state refers to every partnership as "Civil Union". Why would the gay people want to call their relationship marriage, they should not give a shit about a word from a church that cant accept them. Sure, they could call it marriage, but for what reason should they? That word would be an insult of their identity. They should try to get church to accept them or do their own thing. But i dont say they shouldnt be allowed to call it marriage, im just thinking it would not make sense from a gay point of view.

It has nothing to do with being biased. For example. Is it acceptable to have a Mens club where black people are not allowed to join? No it isn't that's considered racism. So why would be acceptable to exclude people from something. Lots of golf clubs have gotten into a lot of trouble in the recent years for not allowing women to be members of the club.

And you can't really say, well according to the rules of god gays are NOT ALLOWED into our religion or our denomination. Because the fact of the matter is more than one church in North America and Europe have accepted and married gay people before. The only people who care about this are people who have deep seeded reasons to not want gay people to be allowed into their group. This isn't like choosing a hockey team, we don't get to pick and choose who's there. We don't get to choose our neighbors. So to say that I'm bias is incorrect because religious people have just as much leeway with me, unless it is infringing on someone else's life.

[Epinephrine]

Lalalala oh yes... non-religious people can get 'married' too. The word 'marriage' doesn't equate with religion.

Also having gay people being allowed to marry in some countries hasn't lead to the downfall of religion. Since religion is technically beyond national borders, if gays could marry ANYWHERE that religion has a presence in, it would have already destroyed that religion, but obviously... it hasn't.

[Summa]

In Australia they must not have a separation of church and state, because he just isn't getting this...

[Liquid Blue]

The problem is that you guys are biased. You argue for the side of gay people and not for the side of religious people. Those people have rights too and one of them is to define how they want to call a partnership. And since the word is already there with all its meaning why would the gays go trough the hassle of founding their own church just to apply this anti gay word to their partnerships?

hahahahahahahaha

marriage is an anti-gay word now?

when did homosexuals found their own church to just use the word marriage?

what kind of drugs are you on and how much do you pay for that shit

[Squeezer]

I don't get it. If a church chooses allows gay couples to marry (and there are plenty of homosexual friendly churches in Seattle that would jump at this) and the state recognizes it as marriage how can you deny that union by your own definition?

If it's legalized by law and legitimate under their sect of church then doesn't it fit all of your requirements?

I'm not talking about whether you agree in principle or not to the idea of homosexuality, but if the marriage is recognized under both parties (church and state), then isn't it legitimate?

err to Fluffz and kthx or hatethefake if they're still around.

[Fluffz]

And you can't really say, well according to the rules of god gays are NOT ALLOWED into our religion or our denomination.

Of course i could! Thats the whole point of "Freedom of religion". If id choose to found a church for praising a god that only respects aryan people and call their relationship "aryage" who has the right to stop me as long as this religion does not preach physical(as opposed to spiritual) discrimination? And why would a non Aryan person want to apply the term "aryage" to his relationship? Why would a gay person want to use a religious term from a church that does not accept him?

if the marriage is recognized under both parties (church and state), then isn't it legitimate?

Sure - if you can remove all differences in the meaning of marriage than it is legitimate. This however raises 2 Questions: Is removing differences fair for everyone (including ultra religious people)? Is it a good thing to eliminate differences or is the act of conforming differences a discrimination in itself (as long as the differences do not violate ethic)?

[Zerzera]

(4) Your counter argument is: "I don't care enough". Fine with me but if that were true couldnt you quit arguing as a whole? Would save me some trouble..

I don't care about how you call it. Just that it has to be equal to any bond of two persons by law. (Note that God and religion has nothing to do with that law)
I am not biased against Christians, I am one. You are not telling me that your religion gives you the right to block marriage by law, just because it offends you.
It shouldn't offend you because it is their decision and their marriage by human law only.

Is it acceptable to have a Mens club where black people are not allowed to join? No it isn't that's considered racism..

But the Universal Human Rights have something like the right to unite. (Don't know the proper English term) So basically you can.

[froedrick]

I'm not going to accept that gays have to piss off about it. They have just as much of a right to fight for this as anyone does. It's like you're saying 'well black people should have just accepted that they had to sit at the back of the bus, because white people of the time in the U.S. had rights too and they wanted them to sit there'. So honestly I disagree with you and I'm willing to bet that in the next 20 years or so we'll see a shift where my arguments POV will probably be adopted and yours will seem discriminatory and incorrect.