"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


I fully understand that religion plays no part in the legality of marriage in the USA.. Whether you accept it or not, the gay community would gain many supporters if they would just drop the term marriage and called it something else.

Really that is my main point. It would help their cause. If the gay community feels that the term "marriage" being switched with "domestic partners" or some other term is too much to concede then, oh well, they will never get my support on this issue and the many other people who feel the same will continue to vote against it.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Man who married sock puppet gets divorced, partner is in stitches as marriage unravels!

Congratulations. Page 4 and your first flag!
edit on 9/2/12 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Lets look at Marital Terminology from an etymological standpoint, shall we:


Marry (v.):
From the Latin maritare "to wed, to give in". From maritus "a married man/husband, and/or mari "young woman/wife" or meryo "young man/suitor.


Nothing specifically man and woman there, as the name "Marry" comes from various words meaning married men or women. Nothing saying they have to marry one another.


Marry (interj.):
a common oath in the Middle Ages, mid-14c.


Nothing saying men must marry women here either. Marry is but an "oath", not a heterosexual specific one.


Intermarry
1570s, "to marry one another," from inter- + marry. Meaning "to marry across families, castes, tribes, etc."


The union between two families. That's a strike against incestuous marriage, but not gay marriage.


Marriage
c.1300, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage"


Again, nothing in the original meaning that specified a man to woman union.

Marriage is the marrying of two things; man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, water and tea, coffee and sugar. Todays definitions, like a lot of things, have been changed and corrupted by the church, not the other way around, like many would have us believe.

A favorite quote about the definition of marriage:

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part."
~ G.B. Shaw

Now shouldn't anyone be free to partake in such misery?



edit on 9-2-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



No, actually the ignorance and complete hypocrisy comes into play when you want to start limiting what the term marriage means. If you want to say that a human and a dog don't have the right to call their relationship a marriage then why isn't it ok for me to say that same sex couples relationships should not be called a marriage?


Cause dogs can't sign the official documentation, they don't have thumbs and can't write.


Seriously, call marrying a dog marrying a dog if you want. It's YOU that's limiting what the term marriage means. It's the union of two PEOPLE. Or people and animals if that's what floats your boat but we both know that's not legally binding.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Well, I, as a Married Atheist, would be willing to have it be the case that the legal contract portion of marriage be termed something else for EVERYBODY - domestic partnership or whatever - and the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony.

I would be OK with that. I know plenty of married people who would not.

But to insist that the term "marriage" applies to non-gay marriages without regard to the religous factor is along the same lines as insisting that inter-racial marriages between a man and a woman be called something else. Or that inter-religous marriages be called something else.

This is a slippery slope, I'm afraid, and is the consequence of religous intolerance. There has never been an argument against gay people being married that is not a religously based one. And religions can be kind of nuts...

So if we start down this path, will we have a plethora of different names for the legal contract, all to appease the religous groups?

Will we have 'domestic partnerships' for gays? 'Inter-racial domestic partnerships' for mixed race couples? How about "multi-faith partnerships"? Or maybe "Unusally-wide-age-gap partnerships"? Or perhaps "Exceptionally tall domestic partnerships"?

I do agree that if the gay community were to accept the labels the straight religous community wants them to accept, they gay community would garner more support.

But they would get even MORE support if they would just stop being gay. Or at least "rubbing it in people's faces" as I've heard the complaint many times...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
During the course of this thread I have had to take a more right wing conservative viewpoint on this issue. I actually am quite a left wing liberal politically. I know you would never have guessed that. That's why I'm telling you.

I was born in one the gayest cities in the USA. San Francisco, CA. I lived for 28 years one neighborhood over from the largest gay community in CA. the Castro. I have lived side by side with gays all my life.

I know the good side of the gay community as well as the bad. I probably know it better than some gay people who are not from an area with an open gay community.

I know I may have come off to some people as being a homophobe or a biggot. But that is truly not the case.
What I am saying is a key reason why so many people do not support the issue of gay marriage.

I made a few rude remarks which I will apologize for. But the main point I am making would benefit the gay community to listen and find a way to see past the abrasive, negativity.

Give up the word marriage and gain all the rights of married couples, it's as simple as that

This is a picture of me as a little kid in Mayor Moscone's office about one month before he was shot




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 





Well, I, as a Married Atheist, would be willing to have it be the case that the legal contract portion of marriage be termed something else for EVERYBODY - domestic partnership or whatever - and the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony.
yg

I can agree with that.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 





Well, I, as a Married Atheist, would be willing to have it be the case that the legal contract portion of marriage be termed something else for EVERYBODY - domestic partnership or whatever - and the term "marriage" reserved for the religious ceremony.
yg

I can agree with that.


Since marriage began as a contract between families to be recognized by a King or Regional Noble, and not a "religious" union, why don't we keep marriage for that purpose and let religious marriages find a new term, like "Religious Union" or "United before God" (which ever god that might be)?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
Since marriage began as a contract between families to be recognized by a King or Regional Noble, and not a "religious" union, why don't we keep marriage for that purpose and let religious marriages find a new term, like "Religious Union" or "United before God" (which ever god that might be)?


Good point... my actual preference would be to have the legal contract called "marriage", and have the religous component called "holy matrimony"... which I think is already a known, used term for the religous aspect.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
Since marriage began as a contract between families to be recognized by a King or Regional Noble, and not a "religious" union, why don't we keep marriage for that purpose and let religious marriages find a new term, like "Religious Union" or "United before God" (which ever god that might be)?


Good point... my actual preference would be to have the legal contract called "marriage", and have the religous component called "holy matrimony"... which I think is already a known, used term for the religous aspect.


Makes sense. I like it!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I also apologise if I caused any offence.

I would just like to point out that gay people are all painted with the same brush no matter where you grow up or what sort of atmosphere.
I grew up in Namibia, where even to this day you could get hit over the head with a baseball bat just for airing your gay views.
This is why it is difficult for some of us to make peace with the attitude that we 'shove it in the straight people faces all the time", we have to live in the shadows here!

Any case, time to knock off, going home to bed, alone! Not that it bothers me, I never did want to get married! Haha, that probably makes me one of the lucky one's!

Good night and God bless!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


What is the point? Who cares, what makes a word have so much power over your thinking?
Why do christians think they own the word marriage. It is what it is. If you care about what something is called then you are both small minded and justifying your own prejudices. Deluding yourself into thinking it's something less than what it actually is.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Personally I would be willing to compromise. This issue is not my fight and my opinion is not set in stone. However I doubt that the religious right or the Christian majority would agree to those terms.

People may not agree with me but I think that the term marriage is a big stopping point for many Americans when it comes to supporting gay rights. I can see a large amount of support being swung towards the gay community if they would just stop trying to call it marriage and call it something else.

I think I've made that point pretty clear so, I'm going to move on to other issues that concern me more. I'll check back in later and see if this debate has any new developments.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

EDIT
You know that if a man and a woman have been a couple living together for more than 8 years in the USA they are legally considered a domestic partnership and all the same laws apply to them (if they split up) as if they were married.

However I don't believe this law applies to same sex couples. How is that fair?
edit on 9-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)


Not all states allow this and there has to be certain circumstances
www.nolo.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Apparently what "God" wanted no longer matters...Marriage is a term that should be reserved for a man and a woman.


Ahhhh shut up. You may as well have just said, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

If it's just words you're worried about then fine, but when you bring your creepy, made up god into it then you should just sit the f down.

As for marriage between a man and a woman - come on. I mean come on.

Why can't marriage be an attempt at an official, committed domestic partnership between any two consenting adults? I mean, they're consenting, aren't they?

What are you afraid of? That if they divorce it will further cheapen the institution? Divorces between heterosexual marriages have already done that.

Why not just back away and let people live their lives?

Does it have an impact on you? If you think it does, what is your perceived impact?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Not all states allow this and there has to be certain circumstances
www.nolo.com...


Ha! Just for giggles, I went there and found a link to my state. The grand ole' state of SC does recognize common law marriages and you can even marry if you are: "not too closely related to your intended spouse."

But gay marriage? No way, Jose.


Does South Carolina have same-sex marriage?

No. South Carolina doesn't allow partners of the same sex to marry, nor does it recognize domestic partnerships, civil unions, or reciprocal beneficiaries.


So...you can marry your second cousin here but god forbid your life partner have the same itty bits as you and you want some legal benefits.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I can see a large amount of support being swung towards the gay community if they would just stop trying to call it marriage and call it something else.


The problem with this type of thinking is that it could (and would) cause discrimination.

Job Interview:

Interviewer: Are you Married?

Interviewed: No, I have a "domestic Partnership"

Interviewer thinking to him/herself: Next...I don't want no Fag working for me.......



edit on 9-2-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
People may not agree with me but I think that the term marriage is a big stopping point for many Americans when it comes to supporting gay rights. I can see a large amount of support being swung towards the gay community if they would just stop trying to call it marriage and call it something else.


Actually, I do agree with you on this... I do think the word "marriage" when applied to gay people does set off "issues" in many Americans. Based on religous dogma for the most part.

However, this is a bigotted attitude on the part of those Americans. It may not be comfortable to hear, but it is the reality...

For the religious community in the US to succeed in having marriage by gay people called something else, it would be a step - a BIG step - backwards... we might as well start calling black people "'n-word's" again, and call white people "honkys", and call Latin people "beaners". And so on... and no, I did not forget you "slant eye" Asian folks for the bigot-fest.


So while I agree with your point that the term "marriage" does result in more opposition than gay people might get if they dropped the term, I disagree with you that they (gay people) should drop the term.

On the contrary, I more strongly support the use of the term "marriage" by the gay community. If for no other reason than that language can and does make a difference, and using a different term for marriage by gay people is a negative influence in terms of freedom of individuals and the health of the culture as a whole.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there. But when you want to try to shove it in my face is when I say , no that's not OK.



No one is shoving anything in your face you just find gay marriage a threat
edit on 9-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)


I know alot of people say that when they explain they're not homophobic, but it is a truly stupid statement. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If you don't care about what people do, then why would you care about it being discussed in public? Would heterosexual people feel uncomfortable if they were told by their community 'we don't mind you having sex, but don't you shove it in our faces'? I don't think many people would be very happy. Gays and straight people just want to get along and live their lives ... the only people being upset are those who are too pre-occupied with the sex lives of others (presumably because they aren't getting any!)





new topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join