Marriage is what it is. Any government that thinks it can redefine it is lying to itself. (What government doesn't I guess?) This is a slippery slope we tread as well. If you look into history, you will see that the insitution of marriage is a major cornerstone of Western Civilization.
To me, it really is about the WORD marriage. Let them have a civil union or whatever they feel they "need". But no matter what happens, they will still complain because that is the liberal solution to everything.... Blame somebody ELSE.
I just wish people would understand more about our history, so they can see what homosexual marriage can do to a society. <sigh>
To me, it really is about the WORD marriage. Let them have a civil union or whatever they feel they "need". But no matter what happens, they will still complain because that is the liberal solution to everything.... Blame somebody ELSE.
I just wish people would understand more about our history, so they can see what homosexual marriage can do to a society. <sigh>
Ok same thing I thought it was.lol
"Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far more common than those that do not. However, monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed by polygyny"
"Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far more common than those that do not. However, monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed by polygyny"
R
This is what I got... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
Government has just as much right to define the word marriage as any religion. Last I checked, marriage has been around a lot longer than any religion....including christianity.
LOL. That's an argument based solely on a 'they're all the same' logic - which doesn't fly.
Please - enlighten us with facts - not speculation or fear-mongering.
Here are the facts as I see them:
-Call it what you want for who-ever you want. It doesn't threaten me or my marriage.
-There are homo-sexual couples who spend a lifetime together who are more deserving of the definition of being married than some couples out there who view marriage as a temporary relationship
-Strait or gay, biologically, people can love, show a lifetime of devotion and be happy. If the shoe fits, wear it.
LOL. That's an argument based solely on a 'they're all the same' logic - which doesn't fly.
Please - enlighten us with facts - not speculation or fear-mongering.
Here are the facts as I see them:
-Call it what you want for who-ever you want. It doesn't threaten me or my marriage.
-There are homo-sexual couples who spend a lifetime together who are more deserving of the definition of being married than some couples out there who view marriage as a temporary relationship
-Strait or gay, biologically, people can love, show a lifetime of devotion and be happy. If the shoe fits, wear it.
This is where our modern "if it feels good, do it" society is screwed. There are WAY more important things in life than making your private parts happy.
Also, the PURSUIT of happiness is guaranteed. The PURSUIT. It does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit thereof. Thus, you are free to try it but not guaranteed it.
In the end, this topic is WAY too important to be allowed to be decided by the government/courts. This is a topic for the PEOPLE. It needs to be voted on, but it never will be. This topic stands a snowballs chance in a really hot place of surviving if it was ever put to a vote of the people. PERIOD. Look at the results of elections on this topipc by other states so far.
Just pay attention to how the gay lobby fights this topic. Notice it is almost always about courts and not people? They know what would happen if it got put up to a vote. That and every time somebody says anything bad about gays, they get accused of being gay themselves. Which I think is totally laughable. Those are the actions of a defeated group.
Also, the PURSUIT of happiness is guaranteed. The PURSUIT. It does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit thereof. Thus, you are free to try it but not guaranteed it.
In the end, this topic is WAY too important to be allowed to be decided by the government/courts. This is a topic for the PEOPLE. It needs to be voted on, but it never will be. This topic stands a snowballs chance in a really hot place of surviving if it was ever put to a vote of the people. PERIOD. Look at the results of elections on this topipc by other states so far.
Just pay attention to how the gay lobby fights this topic. Notice it is almost always about courts and not people? They know what would happen if it got put up to a vote. That and every time somebody says anything bad about gays, they get accused of being gay themselves. Which I think is totally laughable. Those are the actions of a defeated group.
I have to say, i agree with you but i still think there would be less controversy if gay couples were allowed marraige. I absolutely HATE to bring religion into this, but alot of people see marraige as being brought together under god. How screwed up is it for the gay atheist couples who wanna get married? lol
R
This is how I veiw it...
Its as simple as this... marriage was meant for a man and a woman. There is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, but people dont understand the real definition of marriage. If two people of the same sex gets married, then technicaly it couldnt be called "marriage" any more, because that is not what it was meant for. People who are in favor of same sex marriage are trying to change what it really is. Gosh this is hard to explain! look at it this way... if there was a fruit stand and all the sudden they started selling meats, then it wouldnt be a fruit stand any more, right? Here is another example, if you were to be a vegan and then all the sudden you started eating steak for dinner, then you would be vegan any more, right? Look in the dictionary under marriage and you will find that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Since there are alot of same sex couples who want to get married there should be another type of union for them too. (THIS IS MY OPINION, AND YOU ARE ALOWED TO HAVE ONE TOO)
Its as simple as this... marriage was meant for a man and a woman. There is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, but people dont understand the real definition of marriage. If two people of the same sex gets married, then technicaly it couldnt be called "marriage" any more, because that is not what it was meant for. People who are in favor of same sex marriage are trying to change what it really is. Gosh this is hard to explain! look at it this way... if there was a fruit stand and all the sudden they started selling meats, then it wouldnt be a fruit stand any more, right? Here is another example, if you were to be a vegan and then all the sudden you started eating steak for dinner, then you would be vegan any more, right? Look in the dictionary under marriage and you will find that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Since there are alot of same sex couples who want to get married there should be another type of union for them too. (THIS IS MY OPINION, AND YOU ARE ALOWED TO HAVE ONE TOO)
actually...definitions are CONSTANTLY changing...first word that pops into my head, since it applies to the topic... gay....it is VERY very rare to hear someone use it meaning its old definition..'happy'...now its primary meaning is referring to a homosexual.
The english language is constantly evolving...and changing...society changes the definitions, and the dictionarys follow. like, there is an english teacher at my highschool...and she is all into grammar...and was telling her students that "someone else's" is NOT correct...it is actually "someone's else"...ok, well great, but i mean, you use that in everyday speech, and people will think you are nuts...the 'rule' will change to account for that...its just how the world works.
I am sure at one point a "person" had to be defined as like, a white male or something....cause females and other races didnt even count (this is an assumption!!)
so anyways, i do think same-sex marriage should be allowed...no matter the definition of marriage. It isnt hurting anyone!!
The english language is constantly evolving...and changing...society changes the definitions, and the dictionarys follow. like, there is an english teacher at my highschool...and she is all into grammar...and was telling her students that "someone else's" is NOT correct...it is actually "someone's else"...ok, well great, but i mean, you use that in everyday speech, and people will think you are nuts...the 'rule' will change to account for that...its just how the world works.
I am sure at one point a "person" had to be defined as like, a white male or something....cause females and other races didnt even count (this is an assumption!!)
so anyways, i do think same-sex marriage should be allowed...no matter the definition of marriage. It isnt hurting anyone!!
It is true that my faith drives my arguement. But, do not let that alone be the deciding factor. Ask the PEOPLE what marriage means to them.
I know, I know... bad tactic... Even though it is true. <wink>
LOL "Speculation" and "Fear-Mongering".... See above responce...
1.) ""Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception.""
Quote from Troy Perry, a 'moderator" of the 'Metropolitan Community Church'.
Is not marriage intended to be a LIFE LONG commitment to a single person?
2.) It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage. (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16) I know, faith based arguement. I think it should and does as people often vote with this topic as a premise for their vote.
3.) Ancient Greece? Homosexuality was encouraged among their military forces (Plato also has a famous symposium on the topic) because they thought it would encourage the men to fight harder if their "lover" was on the field. Until disease decimated the ranks.... or in shorter campaigns, the soldiers would sometimes end up injuring each other in "lovers spats".
4.) Soddom and Gomerrah? I know, faith based arguement but still not less valid.
Lazy mans way out.... It may not effect YOUR marriage, but how about your children's? Would you support your own child in a homosexual relationship?
The argument is not, CAN they do it, it is SHOULD they get to be "married". I say NO. Based on what my faith tells me is right and wrong. The faith shared by most of the founding fathers and the great men and women who helped build this nation.
I know, I know... bad tactic... Even though it is true. <wink>
LOL "Speculation" and "Fear-Mongering".... See above responce...
1.) ""Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception.""
Quote from Troy Perry, a 'moderator" of the 'Metropolitan Community Church'.
Is not marriage intended to be a LIFE LONG commitment to a single person?
2.) It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage. (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16) I know, faith based arguement. I think it should and does as people often vote with this topic as a premise for their vote.
3.) Ancient Greece? Homosexuality was encouraged among their military forces (Plato also has a famous symposium on the topic) because they thought it would encourage the men to fight harder if their "lover" was on the field. Until disease decimated the ranks.... or in shorter campaigns, the soldiers would sometimes end up injuring each other in "lovers spats".
4.) Soddom and Gomerrah? I know, faith based arguement but still not less valid.
Lazy mans way out.... It may not effect YOUR marriage, but how about your children's? Would you support your own child in a homosexual relationship?
The argument is not, CAN they do it, it is SHOULD they get to be "married". I say NO. Based on what my faith tells me is right and wrong. The faith shared by most of the founding fathers and the great men and women who helped build this nation.
rottiegirl said:
Its as simple as this... marriage was meant for a man and a woman. There is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, but people dont understand the real definition of marriage. If two people of the same sex gets married, then technicaly it couldnt be called "marriage" any more, because that is not what it was meant for. People who are in favor of same sex marriage are trying to change what it really is. Gosh this is hard to explain! look at it this way... if there was a fruit stand and all the sudden they started selling meats, then it wouldnt be a fruit stand any more, right? Here is another example, if you were to be a vegan and then all the sudden you started eating steak for dinner, then you would be vegan any more, right? Look in the dictionary under marriage and you will find that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Since there are alot of same sex couples who want to get married there should be another type of union for them too. (THIS IS MY OPINION, AND YOU ARE ALOWED TO HAVE ONE TOO)
another thing you have to remember rottie...who makes up these definitions?? it is very possible that new editions of dictionaries will start to become more general in their definition of marriage...defining it like in nedim's dictionary...while others, run by some conservative old dudes, will make it even more obvious that a marriage should be between a man and woman, and not include same-sex...
dictionaries and definitions and all those things are determined by society...if every single fruit stand started selling meat, and everyone started calling 'fruit', 'meat'..,...then i betcha the definition would change in new dictionaries after awhile...im not saying its an immediate process, its not like it would happen after a year...but it would have to happen, cause yeah..it would., lol
R
Dreeza
I believe you are talking about slang when you mentioned the word "gay" being changed. Marriage does not just have a certain definition, it also has rules. it does not state that same-sex couples can be married, and that is why the definition says, man and woman. What is so wrong about same-sex couples having another type of union instead of the traditional "marriage" anyway?
I believe you are talking about slang when you mentioned the word "gay" being changed. Marriage does not just have a certain definition, it also has rules. it does not state that same-sex couples can be married, and that is why the definition says, man and woman. What is so wrong about same-sex couples having another type of union instead of the traditional "marriage" anyway?
As for the 'lazy mans' way out, perhaps , however, to answer your question - I would rather see them 'married' to someone of the same sex than see them viewed as being 'shacked-up'. In short, yes I would support them.
As for the ancient Greeks, it worked for them and for the Romans. Just think of where the world would be if condoms were in wide usage back then
For point 1) on monogamy, it wasn't and in some cases today in the mid-west (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't apply to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall some Mormans (? I believe it's them but may be wrong) who defy the conventional definition of marriage by marrying multiple wives.
By "defining" marriage on a governmental level, there's some degree of control of what's 'allowed'. If left up to the individual religion, then marriage could have as many different definitions as there are sects. However, if marriage is defined by the government and it says person to person - excluding all others, it allows religions to administer their beliefs within the confines on monogamy. The one point to make here is that Churches (as 1 example of many possible religious institutions) have to be allowed the right to refuse to marry a couple if it goes against that churches' belief.
I'll admit, I'm not a religious person, so I don't have anything beyond myself to guide my beliefs. Your quotes from scripture are a prime example of reasons why churches shouldn't marry Gay couples.
Anyways, it makes for an interesting discussion.
, however, to answer your question - I would rather see them 'married' to someone of the same sex than see them viewed as being 'shacked-up'. In short, yes I would support them.As for the ancient Greeks, it worked for them and for the Romans. Just think of where the world would be if condoms were in wide usage back then
For point 1) on monogamy, it wasn't and in some cases today in the mid-west (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't apply to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall some Mormans (? I believe it's them but may be wrong) who defy the conventional definition of marriage by marrying multiple wives.
By "defining" marriage on a governmental level, there's some degree of control of what's 'allowed'. If left up to the individual religion, then marriage could have as many different definitions as there are sects. However, if marriage is defined by the government and it says person to person - excluding all others, it allows religions to administer their beliefs within the confines on monogamy. The one point to make here is that Churches (as 1 example of many possible religious institutions) have to be allowed the right to refuse to marry a couple if it goes against that churches' belief.
I'll admit, I'm not a religious person, so I don't have anything beyond myself to guide my beliefs. Your quotes from scripture are a prime example of reasons why churches shouldn't marry Gay couples.
Anyways, it makes for an interesting discussion.