They can be legally joined the same way and have all the things that go with it for all I care.
The dictionary meaning of marriage I THINK has been the same for thousands of years. That is between a man and a woman. To me a lot are about taking over what is normal and creating a new normal not about just accepting there life style. The word gay used to mean happy. Purple was just a color and a triangle was just a shape. Rainbow was also highjacked. Marriage is just marriage and they should not be hijacking the name marriage.
Even states that legalized gay marriage had problems filling out the forms. They said bride and groom. So now we need to change the forms anyways. So why not have a separate form for a different type of union and call it something else rather then asking a much larger part of the population to conform?
I would also say that a man In a normal marriage should be allowed to change his last name to that of his wives if they chose to do that. Many states that is not possible. Why is that, it is old and out dated.
Probate, living wills, medical proxies, custody, adoption, mortgages, insurance, benefits, IRA's, SSI, and so on and so on.
Is this directed at me?
I have no problem with any dedicated couple having the same opportunities. That includes all of the above.
Like I said in my other post my son plays with a neighbor kid. His "parents" are gay and I think they are excellent at providing a good stable home. Yes there kid was adopted.
As far a custody if they separated, what does your gender have to do with that? I thought according to the court system that the kid went to the parent that has the kids best interest in mind. Yeah that's how it is supposed to work.
I just have a problem with the definition of marriage.
I think if gay people stopped trying to change the definition of marriage they would get what they want. I think "civil unions" would pass but they are not fighting for that. They are fighting for "marriage."
Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (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 <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
They are trying to change the law, not the definition...unless you are getting your definition of marriage from somewhere other than the dictionary. There is no legal reasoning, that I have heard at least, behind not allowing same sex couples to marry.
Find a dictionary from 50 years ago. Not one that has recently conformed to an agenda . I admit that I am lazy so I have not looked. Where in history have gay people married? If this was the norm then the laws would have included them already. People have been getting married for thousands of years. Marriage is older then a lot of countries and there laws. There also have been gay people thousands of years ago. Like it or not marriage probably started as an idea from religion.
Update: I did a small amount of homework. Turns out there was a "gay" marriage in accent Rome. They had there gods too. The dude married another dude to make it with one of his many wives. Now that is what I want! Not.
So you're arguing about the name YOU get to use for their relationship? Seems like a terribly wasteful waste to spend your time.
Yes it is a waste of time. But that is what the hang up is about. Many people are just like me. They do not care what other people are doing. Just give it another name and they will not have a problem making it legal.
The definition of marriage in 2003 was;
a. the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
The dictionary is updated regularly. New words are made, new definitions are added to current words, etc. I don't believe it is conforming to an "agenda". It is staying with the times and updating definitions as the public redefines words. Unless of course you also believe that the dictionary should stay as is, i.e. no new words, no new definitions.
Also, by your definition of marriage atheists should not be allowed to marry either, since they don't believe in god and marriage started as an idea from religion (which is false). Marriage, in the simplest term, is a union. It can be a union of ANYTHING. The ceremony is what originated from religion.
I still stand by my statement that there is no legal reasoning behind banning same sex marriage, and that they are not trying to change the definition of marriage, only the law. Furthermore, they are not even petitioning for the right to be wed in a religious ceremony. They can't for the same reason that it shouldn't be legal to ban same sex marriage. Churches are private, law is public. Therefore, religious opinions should not be considered or have a bias when determining public law.
P.S.
I'm not trying to pick on you. I just like a good debate!
No prob
I already stated before I do not like blend of state and church that marriage is. The church will not marry you without the paperwork from the state. At least where I live.
That said there are "gay" churches in my area. I do not know if they are approved though from any denomination.
I will say that changing what "marriage" is in law or in definition can lead to something different eventually. Like multiple wives ect.
Yes it is a waste of time. But that is what the hang up is about. Many people are just like me. They do not care what other people are doing. Just give it another name and they will not have a problem making it legal.
I truly don't understand why the name or the word used is so important.
If you truly don't care what they do - why do you care what they call it?
Why not let them use the same word if its the same thing?
California is probably the most liberal state in the US. The people of California voted twice to defeat same sex marriage. This is a state where they run around naked on public streets. They are very accommodating to them there. And it was still voted down.
There is people that will always think being gay is "wrong". Not going to argue that.... but.
When you got freaks running around naked on public streets sporting hard-ons where somebody might be walking there kid, It is going give the gay community a bad rep. Other more rational gay people do not condemn it. Nobody is saying what the heck are we doing? At least not from what I have seen. Just "gay and proud". So people get the wrong idea. It is hard to take them as serious sensible people.
Many people do not want that associated with traditional marriage. And that is what the hang up is. It is the in your face gays demanding there rights while doing things that everybody else would be arrested for.
Call it something else, I know a lot more people would support it. That option was not presented. After some years of civil unions and if they could get there act together, perhaps then they could go for a name change to marriage.
It is kind of like baby steps.
I almost forgot. Perhaps it was just my church, I was required to get the state papers.
Frankly, if I was a homosexual, I wouldn't want to be associated with traditional marriage.
Lol, so true. Before I say anything else, I'll state that I am in a same-sex relationship.
Here where I live same-sex couples can register their relationship, but not get married. I'm personally 100% happy with that and will mourn the day my relationship turns into a marriage. I'm happy for all those to whom it is important to have equal rights, but for me personally marriage as an institution is mostly a joke at the time. At the time the church is arguing about wether they can bless same-sex relationships here where I live. Church agrees to bless malls, boats and dogs, but refuses to bless same-sex relationships? To bless relationships built on love and a wov to love and take care of each other. Where is sanctity in that? Then marriage. The reality tv-shows, high divorce rates, gigantic business that weddings have become are all an abomination in my eyes - something I never wish to be a part of. I'm happy for all those who like that stuff, but it's definately not my cup of tea.
I do not wish to be integrated into the straight lifestyle, and having same-sex marriage is again one step towards that direction. For me the ideal situation would be to have marriage and legal civil partnership between adults separated. The churches can then decide whom they wish to marry, and everyone else could just have a civil partnership.
I also think it's unfair to call every straight relationship a marriage. Not everyone belongs to a religion in which a relationship is called marriage (or to any religion for that matter). And I think it's kinda funny that religious people oppose gay marriage because marriage is between man and a woman and yet casually call every registered relationship between man and a woman a marriage - wether they are christian/jewish or not. Force the term upon some and deny it from some. Such a double standard. Either keep the term strictly for those it is meant for (=for those religions that have marriage) or allow it for everyone. Straight people deserve the right to have a civil partnership aswell!
Disclaimer: I have nothing against marriage and straight people. Some of my best friends are straight and/or married.
When you got freaks running around naked on public streets sporting hard-ons where somebody might be walking there kid, It is going give the gay community a bad rep.
THESE particular people should be arrested. Straight or gay.
I went to college in a city that claimed to be have the 2nd highest PER CAPITA number of gays in the country - behind only San Fran. The only naked people I ever saw running around were Frat boys - who at least claimed to be straight.
Look around the "sex" area on this board. Plenty of really crazy straight people - with stories of sex in public and pleny of other perversions.
A. Have YOU witnessed "freaks running around naked on public streets sporting hard-ons", or was this something you "heard"? I can tell you from personal experience that I have never seen men or women running around in public on a regular basis and I myself live in a pretty liberal area. I have been to gay bars and I even went to the gay pride parade (thousands of homosexuals) in Seattle and witnessed very little of what you are talking about. Yes there were some men dressed as women and some people wearing provocative clothing or flamboyant costumes, but everything was covered. In fact I have seen women wear far more inappropriate clothing than what I saw there and I never hear people complain about that.
B. You say "This is a state where they run around naked on public streets. They are very accommodating to them there” and why shouldn't the state be accommodating. Homosexuals are people just like the rest of us. Should we isolate them to their own communities? They should be subjected (and are in most instances) to the same laws/rules as straight people, i.e. if two straight people can show PDA then two gay people should be able to show PDA, regardless of what you think your children should or shouldn't see.
C. Baby Steps. Why should the entire population of homosexuals be forced to "take baby steps" because of a few are acting inappropriately?
D. Traditional Marriage...don't make me laugh. The divorce rate is through the roof. Infidelity has got to be at an all time high. People more often than not are having sex and children before marriage. Frankly, if I was a homosexual, I wouldn't want to be associated with traditional marriage.
A+B Google for pictures with safe search turned off "Folsom Street Fair" and see what you get. Look through enough of them you will see some crap. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU FOUND
C. In my area there is a lot of gay people that act badly. I can not tell what percentage that is though because you often can not tell if somebody is gay by looking at them. It is often the ones that act badly that stick out. It is those people that give off a bad image. I feel bad for the ones that just want to just live there lives. But as a group it is hard to take them seriously when you do not see anybody speak out about the crazys. So when you are walking down the street and you see two gay people getting off you think what the heck has this world come too? Not realizing you passed many other gay people that you did not notice.
D. Yes traditional marriage is a joke. That is a problem that the hardliners see also. They see values going into the tollet fast enough. They do not want to see it degraded any more then it already has. So they do not want gay marriage for the reasons of A.B.C.
On similar lines, being that they need marriage to guarantee legal transfers, health insurance sharing etc. I have long wondered why then should it not also be extended to siblings. The only reason siblings shoud not be "married" is because of the inbred genetics problem. Ok, say they don't have kids. But shouldn't one sibling with a job and healthcare be able to give healthcare benefits to their other sibling? Posted via Mobile Device
On similar lines, being that they need marriage to guarantee legal transfers, health insurance sharing etc. I have long wondered why then should it not also be extended to siblings. The only reason siblings shoud not be "married" is because of the inbred genetics problem. Ok, say they don't have kids. But shouldn't one sibling with a job and healthcare be able to give healthcare benefits to their other sibling? Posted via Mobile Device
2Likes
Re: What is so terrible about gay marriage? 
Before I say anything else, I'll state that I am in a same-sex relationship.
