Same Sex marriage

[joshuatree]

Re: Same Sex marriage

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

I agree here too. Though I would take it even a step further and say "marriage" is a concept not just of religion but of many customs and traditions. If all this hoopla is over forcing a same-sex union to be called "marriage", I advocate same-sex couples to merely choose a new word to describe their unions. I believe same-sex unions should be entitled to all the legal rights of a marriage but just call it something else. I would not see calling it a different word any more or less than the word "marriage".

[Adri]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Since "marriage" was originally a religious ceremony and sacred in nature, I do not believe that "same sex marriage" should be legal. It's an oxymoron, in its very essence.

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

/snip

Pahhh-leeeze! It boils down to RESPECT for one's religious beliefs, and that's the bottom line.

None of the proposals for same sex marriage "force" any religion or church to perform same sex marriage ceremonies but there *are* churches that do want to (and some actually do perform, even without force of law) same sex marriage ceremonies. What about them and respect for their beliefs?

You may argue that marriage was originally a religious ceremony but there are equal grounds (and legal grounds) to argue that marriage was originally a contract between people. Thus, in the "old days" a person breaking a marriage engagement could be held liable for breach of promise and a person interfering in a marriage could be held liable for that interference.

Per Wikipedia: "Marriage remained a strictly civil institution until about the mid 5th century AD. Around that time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it. Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings. Having always regarded it, in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other Orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as a sacrament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

and as others have mentioned, Western ideas of marriage have traditionally been one man and one woman in a religious ceremony but far older civilizations have included other arrangements including polygamy.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Same Sex marriage

If all this hoopla is over forcing a same-sex union to be called "marriage", I advocate same-sex couples to merely choose a new word to describe their unions. I believe same-sex unions should be entitled to all the legal rights of a marriage but just call it something else. I would not see calling it a different word any more or less than the word "marriage".

But if it's just the same as a marriage, why not call it a marriage? "Separate but equal" was a concept deflated by the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s; let's not bring it back.

[joshuatree]

Re: Same Sex marriage

But if it's just the same as a marriage, why not call it a marriage? "Separate but equal" was a concept deflated by the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s; let's not bring it back.

Because in this case, there is one difference. One's a union between a man and a woman. The other is between two of the same sex. The Civil Rights issue was about race and color. This is about a union between the opposite sex or between two of the same sex. You're gonna tell me there's no difference between a man and a woman?

[timkona]

Re: Same Sex marriage

The answer to this one is so easy, homo's would never even think of it.

ALL THEY NEED IS A NEW WORD.

Marriage, Matrimony, Marital, et al to describe man/woman.

Glingblat, Glingamony, Glingital et al to describe a man/man.

Some other set of word for woman/woman.

I'm being silly with these silly words, but my point is that most people are stuck on the word, not the concept. If Queers invent a different word, the controversy melts away magically.

I've often heard that fags are very creative people. So why not use that creativity to come up with a new, nice sounding, word to describe the love and commitment they have to each other.

For the record, I grew up in the SF Bay Area, and have no problem with same-sex civil unions. But you can't use the word marriage. Get a new word. Too easy. Problem would be solved much quicker.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Because in this case, there is one difference. One's a union between a man and a woman. The other is between two of the same sex. The Civil Rights issue was about race and color. This is about a union between the opposite sex or between two of the same sex. You're gonna tell me there's no difference between a man and a woman?

Depends...you're gonna tell me there's no difference between skin colors? That was the argument years ago, remember - fortunately, we've moved beyond considering that to be an obstacle. We need to do the same with gender.

Love sees no color - love sees no sex - love sees no handicaps - love sees no restrictions. But the laws do - and they should, when it comes to protection of someone who could be oppressed. Hence I would not suggest that someone be permitted to marry a five-year-old child (just in case anyone was about to bring that into play.) But there is nothing that needs to be "protected" from homosexual marriage.

For those who see this as a "typically liberal" perspective - I thought a basic tenet of conservatism was to get government out of the bedrooms and private lives of citizens.

Tim - again, you lose my point. If you accept that the legal status is exactly the same, why do you need a different word? Why does it need to be moved into a different box? No one has answered (to my satisfaction) why there isn't room in the word "marriage" for homosexual relationships? Frankly, the most convincing arguments I've heard (and they were stated earlier) is that "marriage" should be considered a religious union/ceremony, while "unions" are civil. So therefore, if you don't have your man+woman relationship sanctioned by any church, you don't get to call it a "marriage." If it's just a matter of different words for the same legal status, that shouldn't be a problem now, should it? (And if it is, do gay couples have to describe themselves as "civilly unionized"?)

To put it even more simply: what is so sacred about the actual word "marriage" that you fear allowing homosexuals to use it to describe their relationships?

[Bard]

Re: Same Sex marriage

I'm being silly with these silly words, but my point is that most people are stuck on the word, not the concept. If Queers invent a different word, the controversy melts away magically.

Am I talkin' to myself here or what?

Call them all "civil unions" and be done with it. Let the churches call it whatever they want.

[joshuatree]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Depends...you're gonna tell me there's no difference between skin colors? That was the argument years ago, remember - fortunately, we've moved beyond considering that to be an obstacle. We need to do the same with gender.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between skin colors other than than the colors themselves. But between a man and a woman....do I really need to be graphic? There's the psychological and physiological differences. If there was absolutely no difference, we be called androgynous.

Love sees no color - love sees no sex - love sees no handicaps - love sees no restrictions. But the laws do - and they should, when it comes to protection of someone who could be oppressed. Hence I would not suggest that someone be permitted to marry a five-year-old child (just in case anyone was about to bring that into play.) But there is nothing that needs to be "protected" from homosexual marriage.

The love sees no sex I'm not buying. I'm not saying it's any better or worse but I'm just never gonna fall in love with someone of the same sex. It isn't me. And that's the distinction that the word "marriage" should make. Notice I'm all for giving same-sex couples all the same rights and privileges and protection of a heterosexual couple, so what oppression can there be? I would like to turn the question around and ask, why such insistance on calling a same-sex union "marriage"? What's wrong with choosing another word?

Tim - again, you lose my point. If you accept that the legal status is exactly the same, why do you need a different word? Why does it need to be moved into a different box? No one has answered (to my satisfaction) why there isn't room in the word "marriage" for homosexual relationships? Frankly, the most convincing arguments I've heard (and they were stated earlier) is that "marriage" should be considered a religious union/ceremony, while "unions" are civil. So therefore, if you don't have your man+woman relationship sanctioned by any church, you don't get to call it a "marriage." If it's just a matter of different words for the same legal status, that shouldn't be a problem now, should it?

Well, what's really the difference between Coke or Pepsi? They're both colas, so shouldn't they just be called the same name? Yet, there are subtle differences right?

As for the church argument, that's assuming everyone who believes in marriage is Christian and follows the Church. There are people who don't fit that description but still defines marriage as between man and woman due to their customs, traditions, and beliefs too.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Same Sex marriage

Why legalize gay marriage? It isn't about legalizing love or sex. It is so that the two within that marriage can recieve the same 1000+ legal benefits that any other married couple can. And since the word "married" is used in state laws, federal laws, tax codes, estate law, etc, then it would be cheaper for the country to be intellectually honest about this uh, civil union and call it "marriage".

If you don't want gay marriage, don't enter into one. And legalizing gay marriage isn't going to affect my hetero marriage at all.

[Hellbent]

Re: Same Sex marriage

I dont see what the fuss is about.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Same Sex marriage

FYI, here are some details on what being married means in the USA from a legal standpoint. The list of ways that the rights and responsibilities of married couples differ from those of couples who merely live together is astounding.