Gay Marriage. Is the opposition just Symantecs?

It seems the religious right are the primary one opposing gay marriage. And from what I see, it is purely for the definition of marriage that this opposition exists. So I have a question. Would it be better to just call any marriage that is not between a man and a woman a "civil union" and offer the exact same state and federal benefits to that classification that classic "marriage" has?

I think everyone has a right to be happy, whatever it is that makes them happy. As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's happiness.

Or, is the term marriage what is most important to the LGBT community? (honest question)

Nope. It's all about money.

The insurance companies don't want to insure same sex spouses.
The feds don't want joint tax returns.
The states don't want properties to be inherited, they want them sold and taxed accordingly.

a reply to: network dude

the thing is - the christian right accepts secular divorve without a murmur . so thier opposition to cay marriage is just bigotry - pure and simple

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

This right here.

Either way it looks like it will all over soon and we can go back to focusing on the plethora of much more awful issues at hand.

When it becomes legal in Texas that in my opinion will be the last state that will make the biggest difference. Either way the time is near and I am ready to stop hearing about it all. Oh yeah, it will be nice to marry my gf too. We're kinda getting older and stuff and that'd be a nice life step with some little goodies thrown in for good measure. Unless we become rich...but eh that hasn't happened yet so...

Edit: Also, when the time comes I will buy my "gay" cake from a business that likes money. I will also have my ceremony at a place that likes money. So no one has to fear me being in the headlines.

Edit: This part didn't show up. The term marriage is negligible but if I feel like using it I will. I don't understand why people think they have a monopoly on a word that has a very colorful history that for the most part has been about gender slavery and has nothing to do with modern monogamous couples...

originally posted by: network dude
It seems the religious right are the primary one opposing gay marriage. And from what I see, it is purely for the definition of marriage that this opposition exists. So I have a question. Would it be better to just call any marriage that is not between a man and a woman a "civil union" and offer the exact same state and federal benefits to that classification that classic "marriage" has?

I say no. Putting gay people into a different category from everyone else would only serve to feed the separation that exists. Separate but equal? Doesn't work.

The religious right opposed blacks getting married too, and then they opposed interracial couples getting married, and used many of the same arguments (based on the bible) that they use in their opposition to marriage equality.

I don't think it's the term "marriage" that is most important. It's the equal treatment under the law.

Here's what I would support: The legal union of two people would be called civil union. Then, if you're religious and want to get "married" in the eyes of God, that would be between you and your church. But to be a legal union, with government benefits, everyone, including religious people, would have to get a civil union. Then the religious can have the word.

Thing is, everyone would still call themselves "married", not "civilly unionized". And the religious would be pissed off about that. And also, for every bank, corporation, workplace or census, COUNTLESS (probably billions of) forms, questionnaires and applications. etc., across the country, would have to change their paperwork to reflect this new moniker. All to make the religious feel "special".

Religion didn't invent marriage and they really don't have the right to usurp the word and prevent others from using it.

a reply to: network dude
What makes you believe that the anti-virus software company Symantec is opposing "gay marriage"?
Or perhaps you think this question is a matter of semantics?

It is a semantic argument, I think you're exactly right... but creating new labels is exclusionary. In a way trying to brand marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman is demeaning their union as something "different", and is historically dishonest.

The term marriage is a known metaphor... for instance strawberries and cream is a perfect "marriage". You can also marry many other different foods. When two companies merge it is often referred to as a "marriage". The definitions of marriage (dictionary.com) show that the concept is wide and varied: "any close or intimate association or union".

Having religious organisations trying to own a social metaphor is in a sense trying to place them above another section of society. Depending on which culture you look at, over thousands of years, gay marriage is not a new thing... the idea of it has been around for millennia, and has taken many forms; polygamy, same-sex, child, organised, nuns are married to god, etc. Why do the religious care so much about a word, and not allowing a portion of society to use it?

Heck, all you have to do is look up "strange marriages" to see some of the bizarre "marriages" that have been allowed: people marrying their pets, their cars, inanimate objects, dolphins, towers, roller coasters, dolls, a wall, themselves... etc.

Why aren't same sex unions afforded the same social norm?

They do not want civil unions.

They want it called marriage.

They have a small organized group that will not stop....ever

I personally could care less...

It's all about divide and conquer. They only made it an issue to further divide us and galvanize us....against eachother.

Love shouldn't be an issue, it's made one by those who manipulate us into debating eachother while they get away with the corruption.

Love who you want, most Christians could care less, most citizens don't care either. The media just makes it look like we have prudes with God Hates Gays signs (we do but notice how the media loves to exploit these incidents). My best friend's a gay conservative, the media won't be reporting about him any time soon.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Gay Conservative...???

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I know Jon Stewart will be along any second now to rant and "school" me.

a reply to: network dude

It's not about the definition. It's about wanting the same rights as heterosexuals because LGBTQ+ are humans just like heterosexuals are humans.

((I'm bisexual, I have the inside scoop))

That being said, it would be nice if we got to use the term marriage and didn't have to have a different word. We should be equally allowed to use the word marriage.


Edit:

Hating LGBTQ+ people is a way to keep everyone divided so TPTB can go on conquering. Hate the minorities so that people are too busy to realize they are in shackles.

a reply to: Sabiduria

TPTB created the hate. They made this an issue. People scream and rant about rights they should be screaming and ranting at TPTB .

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: network dude

the thing is - the christian right accepts secular divorve without a murmur . so thier opposition to cay marriage is just bigotry - pure and simple

Do we?

I don't. You shouldn't get divorced except for certain, narrow circumstances.

Basically, marriage has been trashed when we decided it was all simply about two adults who love each and that's as far as it goes. Oh, and love in this context conflates to who wants to have mind-blowing sex with whom.

That's not what marriage is or has been or should be understood as for anyone.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I scream at both. TPTB for setting up the hate and the people who keep perpetuating it, too ignorant/brainwashed to see why the hate exists.

Yeah, to me it's all about symantecs. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not a Christian either but that's what I think. Just give it another title when it's same sex. The only ones not happy will be the militant gays who just want to get in the hetros faces.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

and John Oliver

a reply to: network dude

The argument;
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

My counter argument;
The union is defined by the individuals taking part. YOUR marriage does not define MY marriage. If two men want to have a marriage, it does not affect my marriage. It does not lessen the bonds that my wife and I have. It does not negate the vows that we both took. If two individuals wish to join in a union, then they will be responsible for defining their own marriage.
My wife and I have no effect on any other marriages in the universe. Our marriage is between us. It is an agreement. A sacred bond. I could care less what others see marriage as, because the union has no affect on anyone other than the two taking part.

It seems the religious right are the primary one opposing gay marriage. And from what I see, it is purely for the definition of marriage that this opposition exists. So I have a question. Would it be better to just call any marriage that is not between a man and a woman a "civil union" and offer the exact same state and federal benefits to that classification that classic "marriage" has?

I kind of agree and disagree with you on this.

Let me give you a very tolerant Catholics perspective.

Religious people see marriage as a religious sacrament, it is when two people become bound for entirety in the eyes of God in what is a religious ceremony. Aside form the religion side of it comes the legal side, you know the small print that comes with mirage regarding your rights as a couple.

Now my religion has a view that part of being married involves the creation of new life, the consummation of the marriage is very important and part of our faith says that a man and another man should not be lying together. Basically we see sodomy as a sin.

No i quite like what the pope had to say about this recently that it was not for him to judge gay man and women and i agree, if you are gay go for it i am not going to stop you.

Hell even get "Married", but just not in the religious sense.

A priest has a right to practice his religion freely, just as a homosexual has the right to express his sexuality freely, with the issue of homosexual marriage the two are not compatible. (yes i know that who "gay is wrong" thing is very dated but nevertheless). As such it is just as wrong to force a religious minister who as a religios bias (not homophobic) against a homosexual couple to have them married in the eyes of god.

So no i do not think it is right for Bob and Tom to get married in a Church.

However, they can if they want go down to a registry office and get "Civil marriage", they have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple, they just cannot get married in a church.

Yet when you OP say "shouldn't we just all have civil marriages" you are then taking away what is a religious sacrament a cornerstone of the faith. you are effectively infringing the rights of one group in society to "freely practice their religion" just to appease another groups right to freely express sexuality.

Getting the balance is tricky but I think the way we do it now with civil marriages is the best balance we can ever hope for.

a reply to: Oudoceus

I'm not a militant gay who just wants to get in heteros faces but I do believe that I, as a bisexual, should be allowed the same title of marriage whether I marry a guy or a girl.

Why does the fact that I love a woman change anything about the love I have for her vs the love I have for a guy? It wouldn't be any less love just because it is with a woman.

Why should there be a different title? because it makes those that have power more comfortable. "At least they don't have the title of marriage" To have a different term for marriage still keeps a degree of inequality. Do African Americans have a different term than marriage? Why not, by your logic they are different so they should have a different term.