Should it be called gay marriage?


  

184 members have voted

  1. 1. Gay marriage should be...

    • Called Gay Marriage...
      76
    • Called a Civil Union...
      33
    • Called something else...
      25
    • Against the law...
      50


Recommended Posts

You know what? ... why have a marriage in the first place? ... i mean ... i like girls and is called a marriage, if u like the same sex call it something else like ... egairram (is stupid i know) .. or call it ... concubine commitment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not just call it marriage, isnt it obvious if its 2 guys or 2 girls that they are gay. to many rednecks need to label it or be against it. who honestly cares, if they wanna live miserable married lives why cant they.

Because marriage was not "invented" by any government, because marriage has been the defined as a man and woman since before recorded history and because these "marriages" are invalid outside of Canada in the majority of nation.s

Are those reasons enough for you?

How about instead of throwing around tired rhetoric and "names", you think critically for a change or is that too hard for you?

Are you one of those people who really does not care about the issue at all and are just throwing your opinion behind what you think is the "hip" answer?

If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you follow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is easy. Any activity that you can do cannot and should not be excluded from another group. Period. If you feel that gays should not be allowed to be married, then you are a bigot. Sorry, but that is the definition. If you wish to exclude someone from an activity that you can partake in becuase of a gross generalization (black, gay, male, short, tall, etc) then you are a bigot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's outside of Church it's a civil ceremony not a wedding or marriage.

Only heterosexuals can get married in Church not homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's outside of Church it's a civil ceremony not a wedding or marriage.

Only heterosexuals can get married in Church not homosexuals.

So, let's see if I have this right. Im straight, but I didnt get married in a church... so then Im not married? ummm... wrong. It's called for legal reasons "marriage" if it's performed anywhere. A church is not required to have your union called a marriage.

So thanks for playing, we have some marvelous parting gifts for you: A lifetime supply of Turtle Wax and a years supply of Rice A Roni, the San Francisco treat. :laugh:

Oh, and btw; The catholic church used to perform gay weddings in the 15th century.

(it is SO sad that people want the world to be ONLY their way, and not allow others to live life they way they choose)

Edited by jameswjrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because marriage was not "invented" by any government, because marriage has been the defined as a man and woman since before recorded history and because these "marriages" are invalid outside of Canada in the majority of nation.s

Since before recorded history, then how do we know? :blink: Pre-civilization, then who married them? :huh:

What you say just doesn't make sense. Homosexuality has been around ever since people have been around. It never was a big deal until people needed to create issues to divide one another, or feel superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is between a man and a woman only. But honestly I don't even care. Stupid issue either way. There are more important things to worry about.

TRUELY, not to get into an argument but; Sez you.

You have a right to your opinion, you do not have the right to FORCE your opinion into actions that restrict others from their rights. If we were to play that game then me and my friends could say that anyone from Texas would not be allowed to vote. Of course, that would be silly. My OPINIONS are valid... (wait for it) for me and only me. The difference here is that I am not trying to restrict others from the same rights I have. You are. Or at least within your statement you are. ANY attempt by one person/group to restrict another person/group from the same rights/privilages that the first group has is wrong. It really is as simply as that.

And if you dont care, then why are you posting? If you dont care then why do you have some notion to believe that homsexuals should have less rights than yourself? Answer: Because you are a bigot. (again, it's a definition, not a slanderous statement)

As for more important issues to worry about... I cannot think of a more important issue than one group forcing another group to lose it's rights.

Open your mind peoples, realize that we are ALL different humans. Not one human being that has ever been on this planet is the same as another human. Restricting rights/priviages of a group that, for one reason or another, you do not like is simply an unacceptable solution.

Again, NOT an argument, simply a statement of truth.

Sincerely,

James Rose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of this that I find so funny is that everyone always assumes gay = men. Ok, the guys that are against this whole thing... you can't tell me that you have never seen a lesbian porno and you liked it.

I feel that it should just be called marriage, why not? Why segrigate people that activly participate in our community/economy? Why should couples be labeled as gay or straight? You don't go walking down the street thinking, "OH! That person is straight!", why do it with someone who is gay?

Then the people that are bringing religion into the conversation here... You are just sad. Have you ever heard of your pastors/fathers having a sexual relation with a man?, or even worse a young boy at the age of 12? Well I have. You condone and hide them from public view, but when it gets out you disown them.

Whatever, I just find this whole conversation discusting and why it needs to be held in the first place is disturbing. Some people are just so self centered that they don't care about anyone else. If you have never had a friend who is gay, find one. They are some of the best friends that you will find.

I hope one day we as a whole will learn to accept people that are deemed "Different".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you dont care, then why are you posting? If you dont care then why do you have some notion to believe that homsexuals should have less rights than yourself? Answer: Because you are a bigot. (again, it's a definition, not a slanderous statement)

As for more important issues to worry about... I cannot think of a more important issue than one group forcing another group to lose it's rights.

Open your mind peoples, realize that we are ALL different humans. Not one human being that has ever been on this planet is the same as another human. Restricting rights/priviages of a group that, for one reason or another, you do not like is simply an unacceptable solution.

Again, NOT an argument, simply a statement of truth.

Sincerely,

James Rose

I don't agree with your definition of bigotry in this case. I understand you're not trying to use it in a slanderous manner, which I can appreciate. I am against homosexuality, however, but to change the definition of marriage because some people feel discriminated against is wrong to those who have believed in the sanctity of marriage. You feel that the belief of some is enough to change the belief of others. By suggesting someone change their social belief because some people don't agree with it, you're doing the same thing, you're discriminating against those who believe in it.

Now flip back to those who are against homosexuality. Yes, we believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and no woman-woman or man-man combo can ever fit that definition. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get the same rights from the state, hence the Civil Union. Civil Union is a compromise, we may not feel that everyone should have a marriage, but we're willing to agree that they should have the same benefits afforded by being partners. That doesn't make us bigots, infact I think it makes us less so, because we're willing to compromise in everything but name. The ideal of marriage is still upheld, while the idea of marriage is passed on to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is between a man and a woman only. But honestly I don't even care. Stupid issue either way. There are more important things to worry about.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope one day we as a whole will learn to accept people that are deemed "Different".

I was reading Carl Segan's Cosmos back in 1985 and there is one fact that really blew me away. He mentioned that in every human that has ever existed and every human that will ever exist there are not two of whom will have the same DNA. That's right, we are all different. Not one single person on this planet is "normal". There is no such thing as "normal". The act of trying to be something, "normal", that cannot exists is surely a form of insanity.

The sooner we all realize that we are all unique idividuals the better we all will be for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with it? The people are gay, and they got married. Gay Marriage. I'm straight, and someday I will enjoy (or not) being married to someone of the opposite sex, I don't think lesbian women or gay men getting married ..and calling it marriage.. will have any effect on my situation. I have no problem with it at all.

Maybe they could call it Gayiage or something. I don't care.

I was reading Carl Segan's Cosmos back in 1985 and there is one fact that really blew me away. He mentioned that in every human that has ever existed and every human that will ever exist there are not two of whom will have the same DNA. That's right, we are all different. Not one single person on this planet is "normal". There is no such thing as "normal". The act of trying to be something, "normal", that cannot exists is surely a form of insanity.

The sooner we all realize that we are all unique idividuals the better we all will be for it.

Kinda off topic, but i just wanted to mention also that even IF somehow.. two people had the exact same DNA, they would STILL be different, and there would still be no "normal".. because our experiences, not just our DNA determines who we are and how we live.

Now, I don't think homosexuality is "normal" in that, it is apparently unnatural. I have a penis- a woman has a vagina. They fit together. Male/Male or Female/Female is like trying to fit the square into the circle hole of that toy we all played with as kids. It just doesnt work. I don't have a problem with homosexuality, and in todays society, i believe it is something we must all learn to accept and try to understand.. but i also think that some homosexuals need to simply accept the fact that it isn't natural or.. "right". (but it's still okay!)

I really hope i didnt offend anyone, i just wanted to state my opinion on all this. :hug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because marriage was not "invented" by any government, because marriage has been the defined as a man and woman since before recorded history and because these "marriages" are invalid outside of Canada in the majority of nation.s

First off, homosexuality has been around longer than marriage. Marriage has most certiainly not been around since "before recorded history" (what a ridiculous claim to make). Monogamy, perhaps. But marriage is a relatively new institution.

Second, "marriage" is actually two seperate but related institutions. First off there is legal marriage. Legal marriage is new and is largely about two people sharing certain burdens and benefits of citizenship.

Marriage is also a religious ceremony. The practices, rules, and rituals vary greatly from one religion to the next.

The former should apply to any two people who meet the necessary legal requirements. If your government says that one of those requirements is for the people to be of opposite sex, then changing it is a legal matter that could follow one of two courses:

1) The legislature could change the law. In a democracy, this usually happens by a majority vote.

2) The judiciary could determine that the law is itself illegal based on higher law (constitution) or precedent.

If the law makes no distinction, then it should apply to all couples regardless of respective gender.

The latter is entirely up to the religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is also a religious ceremony. The practices, rules, and rituals vary greatly from one religion to the next.

Sorry, not true. It is LARGELY a religious issue, it is not always. I am a straight athiest. When i was married (in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco) it was in no way a religious affair. I get your point, but it's imporant to make the differention. Too often people assume that the majority rules, reguardless of the minorities issues.

cchasem,

Yes, even if two people were to have the same DNA they would be different people becuase of their experiences. My point is that from our base building blocks were are ALL different. Consideration and, hopefully respect of the differences is the only way were are all going to get along.

As for homesexuality being "normal"... a) Homosexuals make up approx 10% of the population, and latino's make up less than that... does that mean latinos are not normal? (Im f'in with ya here, follow along) Homosexuallity is part of nature. Im not going to go into it here, please do your own research. Many animals even switch sexes in cases of over population of one sex (see amphibians) A person's BELIEF that something is not "natural" or "normal" is where the problems start from.

I did read your post stating that you dont mind/care/etc. The WHOLE point of my posts here is to try to open some eyes to the realization that bigotry is bad, in any form. Im an athiest, I find the idea of ANY religion stupid/silly/controlling. However I will NOT try to make others stop believing. I will not try to stop others from going to church and having the same rights that I have.

And that is the way it MUST be. A person's beliefs must only control that person. A person who attemps to control others becuase of their beliefs is a dangerous person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRUELY, not to get into an argument but; Sez you.

You have a right to your opinion, you do not have the right to FORCE your opinion into actions that restrict others from their rights. If we were to play that game then me and my friends could say that anyone from Texas would not be allowed to vote. Of course, that would be silly. My OPINIONS are valid... (wait for it) for me and only me. The difference here is that I am not trying to restrict others from the same rights I have. You are. Or at least within your statement you are. ANY attempt by one person/group to restrict another person/group from the same rights/privilages that the first group has is wrong. It really is as simply as that.

And if you dont care, then why are you posting? If you dont care then why do you have some notion to believe that homsexuals should have less rights than yourself? Answer: Because you are a bigot. (again, it's a definition, not a slanderous statement)

As for more important issues to worry about... I cannot think of a more important issue than one group forcing another group to lose it's rights.

Open your mind peoples, realize that we are ALL different humans. Not one human being that has ever been on this planet is the same as another human. Restricting rights/priviages of a group that, for one reason or another, you do not like is simply an unacceptable solution.

Again, NOT an argument, simply a statement of truth.

Sincerely,

James Rose

I am not a bigot. Don't call me names. I don't exactly appreciate it. And this is not a human rights issue. Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman. It has been this way since forever. By allowing gays to get married, we are destroying the meaning of marriage, what it stands for historically. I have nothing against homosexuals and they should have the same legal rights and privilages that non-gay married couples are entitled to. So if you wish to call it civil union. Fine. But like I said I don't really care that much about the issue either way. Marriage or not. Gay or straight. Makes no difference to me. I can understand why some people might want to preserve the meaning of marriage, its sanctity or whatever. But this is not an issue that requires as much attention and resources as it is given. Personally I just don't like being called a bigot because I'm not one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remix,

I am not calling you names. I find it amazing that when a person, me, states a definition; "bigot" that the other person, you, believes that I am calling you a name. I have studied the english language since before you were born. Bigot is defined as:

1) "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

2) "Person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning"

You dont want people who are not straight to be married, to have the same RIGHTS as you have. That is the definition of bigot. Sorry. You MAY be offended if you wish, but that will be your issue to deal with, not mine. [edit] I was not even specifically stating you Remix, I was stating anyone who restricts the rights of others based on gender, race, etc. Maybe if a person feels offended by a definition they should stop to wonder why they feel that way. If someone called me a programmer (a definition) why would I be offended? But what if someone called me a geek? Well, *I* would not be offended, but I know some programmers who would. Maybe for them they resent the implications. These are issues only a person can define for themselves. Me, I let people do whatever they want to their own mind and body, and if I can do something, then anyone else can do it. Life can be that easy... until someone decideds that they have rights others do not. Sad.[/edit]

>>....we are destroying the meaning of marriage, what it stands for historically<<

Yea. So. Historically, in this country, blacks were slaves and women did not have the right to vote. Times change, we evolve new ideas, we include EVERYONE as is right and fair.

>>. It has been this way since forever

Yes, again, as if history is the single point to judge on what we should do next. And, btw, please check your facts. The catholic church used to perform homosexual weddings. So, it has not been that way forever.

[edit] Also, Marriage is defined, by Webster as

1) " the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"

2) " the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage

So, it is defined as both.

[/edit]

You state that you have nothing against homosexuals and yet you want them to have less right (RIGHTS!!!! for goodness sakes) than you do. Sorry, but again that's a bigotted response. Anyone, and this includes you and me that believes, even for a moment, that anyone, ANYONE, has more rights than anyone else... well, that person is a bigot. Again, not a sladerous statement, simply a definition. Just as homosexual is a definition.

And again, as long as Im ranting against prejudice, if you dont care about these issues, then dont bother to reply.

Sincerely, and without malace.

James Rose

Edited by jameswjrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remix,

I am not calling you names. I find it amazing that when a person, me, states a definition; "bigot" that the other person, you, believes that I am calling you a name. I have studied the english language since before you were born. Bigot is defined as:

1) "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

2) "Person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning"

Can I call you an idiot then ? It is defined as: A foolish or stupid person. Please don't be offended. I am not a bigot. I am not intolerant of gays. I am intolerant of idiots though. I don't know where you studied English language, but maybe you should get your money back. You may also require reading lessons. I said numerous times: I don't care either way. If they allow gays to get married, I don't care. If they allow cows to get married, I don't care. I merely stated why I think some people might have a problem with gay marriage. And last but not least: grow up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, homosexuality has been around longer than marriage. Marriage has most certiainly not been around since "before recorded history" (what a ridiculous claim to make). Monogamy, perhaps. But marriage is a relatively new institution.

Second, "marriage" is actually two seperate but related institutions. First off there is legal marriage. Legal marriage is new and is largely about two people sharing certain burdens and benefits of citizenship.

Marriage is also a religious ceremony. The practices, rules, and rituals vary greatly from one religion to the next.

The former should apply to any two people who meet the necessary legal requirements. If your government says that one of those requirements is for the people to be of opposite sex, then changing it is a legal matter that could follow one of two courses:

1) The legislature could change the law. In a democracy, this usually happens by a majority vote.

2) The judiciary could determine that the law is itself illegal based on higher law (constitution) or precedent.

If the law makes no distinction, then it should apply to all couples regardless of respective gender.

The latter is entirely up to the religion.

Why are you bringing sexuality into it? Sex happens regardless. You are using straw man arguments. None of what you say invalidates what I said. The fact that religious practices differ is not relevant to the discussion or that these gay marriages are invalid outside of Canada. Trying to change the subject does nothing to further the discussion.

Mentioning what the law is now in Canada is a circular argument. It still does not speak to what I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this:

Does the use of the word 'marriage' by homosexuals actually do any harm to anyone?

Ask yourself this question. Does the word marriage mean the same thing if it is invalid abroad? If something is created by the "civil" authorities within "one country unilaterally, it should be called "civil" something. You cannot create something new unilaterally and use a word that previously had a universally accepted definition.

We all get that you are for this thing. Let's all pat you on the back. Did that inflate your ego? Do you feel all hip and liberal?

Now, what you don't seem to understand is that there is a controversy with the name. Push the "concept" all you want but trying to usurp an old word like that will meet stiff resistance and it is dishonest to call it that since it only exists within the borders of a country.

The only harm it does is to gay people themselves by fooling them into thinking they are actually married in the international sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if other countries may or may not accept it? Polygamy is practised around the world, and yet they don't agonize over whether or not the rest of the world will acknowledge their marriage(s). Each country makes their own laws, and we can't account for what's legal in other countries when we make ours.

Also, to all of you people who are saying "Oh, we shouldn't let homosexuals marry because it'll mess up the kids, etc.": SHUT THE **** UP. You have no idea what you're talking about. My mother, who is homosexual, raised myself and my sister. My mother isn't some weird deviant or psycho. She's just a normal woman, who happens to find women attractive and not men. I came out fine. I like women. A lot. I did not come out gay. I don't have any mental disorders, I never had any issue or confusion when I grew up, etc. So kindly stop spewing bull**** from your ignorant and bigotted mouths, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's see if I have this right. Im straight, but I didnt get married in a church... so then Im not married? ummm... wrong. It's called for legal reasons "marriage" if it's performed anywhere. A church is not required to have your union called a marriage.

So thanks for playing, we have some marvelous parting gifts for you: A lifetime supply of Turtle Wax and a years supply of Rice A Roni, the San Francisco treat. :laugh:

Oh, and btw; The catholic church used to perform gay weddings in the 15th century.

(it is SO sad that people want the world to be ONLY their way, and not allow others to live life they way they choose)

You are straight? I think you mean heterosexual, though you do seem to very beachy!

Maybe some people assume that getting their backsides to a registry office or some trailer in Nevada may call it a wedding or marriage, which maybe correct in your trailer park, but not in mine.

If you wish to insult me with your childish 'yo mommas so big' insults, then at least put them in a language I understand.

I didn't take United States language at school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.