Gay marriges - debates

[LiquidCherry]

Exactly the point we are saying. If what counts is the love and rights, why create a second name? Can't we have the same term?

 

Things change. What was once viewed as wrong, is accepted and not a problem. We have made strives to be more accepting and equal in terms of races, nationalities, religions. So why do things that separate gay people and make them feel less a part of things? As long as no one is being hurt, why not let them be "married?"

 

I qouted Shakespear to make a point: That either side can see the same point from a different view.

 

What counts to myself and others is that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Why create a second name? Because it is something different. I am not saying it is something less but it is not the same. That's my "why".

 

Why is the term marriage so important to you? Why is it so important to change the very definition of a word? Homosexuals can't be married as they are of the same sex. It's not discrimitory or segretory. (Yay, I made up a word!)

 

Why is my solution offensive? Why wouldn't a legal union allowing for the same rights by another name be a good compromise?

[novaseeker]

I might be wrong but I think you can list anyone you want to be an inheratant. I also know that all you have to do is sign a piece of paper giving whoever you want the authority to make medical decisions for you if you become incappable of doing so yourself. (Problem is, most people don't do this even though it is really simple and easy. I should know the name of the form but I dont. )

 

Ah, but married people don't have to do that. In other words, there are "default" inheritance rules that apply if you're married (even outside of a written will) and there are "default" provisions that allow a spouse to act for an incapacitated spouse. Why should gay couples need an additional piece of paper, when straight couples don't?

 

As for raising children, many states simply won't allow gay couples to adopt. Other states won't recognize parental orders issued by states thath recognize civil unions, for example Virginia where I live refuses to recognize Vermont's civil unions or custodial decrees issued by Vermont courts relating to civil unions. Quite messed up.

[LiquidCherry]

Why should gay couples need an additional piece of paper, when straight couples don't?

 

That, I agree with you 100%. I was referring to what can be done at this time though. I still wish I could remember what that form is called.

 

As for raising children, many states simply won't allow gay couples to adopt. Other states won't recognize parental orders issued by states thath recognize civil unions, for example Virginia where I live refuses to recognize Vermont's civil unions or custodial decrees issued by Vermont courts relating to civil unions. Quite messed up.

 

That I don't think is fair either. I think any capable person or couple that wants to adopt a child should be allowed to do so.

[Imaginary]

Times change, words change, get used to it. Back then marriage was defined to include multiple wives, slaves and children. Polygamy was never common place in western society, you don't see any slaves now-a-days and not all marriages bear children, right?

[Dako]

I've often heard that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.

Preachers, politicians and other self-appointed guardians of decency love this line.

I got married after a vasectomy. So I shouldn't have been allowed to marry, according to this twisted logic.

[ShySoul]

The word isn't important to me, what is important is the idea behind the word. If a marriage is suppose to be about love and pledging to spend your life together, then as long as two people love each and and want to spend their life together, why not just call it marriage? Why have two words for the same thing, when the only difference is something as arbitrary as gender?

 

I would have to look it up, but who defined that marriage is just between man and women in the first place? How do we know that was what marriage was intended to be in the first place? Using a religious mindframe, I would think God would be more concerned about if the people really did love each other, because the love is what is important. Using a political mindframe, the two terms would mean the same thing in terms of rights and all that, so it just seems redundant to create a new name.

 

Words and definitions can change over time. Perhaps this is a word that should be changed. And if it is, does it really harm anyone?

[xtina]

Anyone heard of Theory of Knowledge?

 

Well, marige is just a word, it is a symbol which mean several things to everyone. It can be a word to describe the union of a man and woman, the union of two people who love each other or just signing a paper (had to add that Symbols mean anything, thereforeeee the word "marrige" shouldn't be concerned. What is happening here is that two christians cannot marry through church, following their beliefs, or two loved ones cannot have a ceremony to make their love official (or something).

Now that gets on my nerves. What is there are people out there who are not christians.. can't they be married in a church, just because it's traditional?

[LiquidCherry]

I would have to look it up, but who defined that marriage is just between man and women in the first place? How do we know that was what marriage was intended to be in the first place? Using a religious mindframe, I would think God would be more concerned about if the people really did love each other, because the love is what is important. Using a political mindframe, the two terms would mean the same thing in terms of rights and all that, so it just seems redundant to create a new name.

 

Words and definitions can change over time. Perhaps this is a word that should be changed. And if it is, does it really harm anyone?

 

The religious meaning behind marriage is why I do not think that the words meaning should be changed. That's not something a debate is going to change for me just as I'm sure I won't be swaying anyone here either. The power to marry is granted by the state and I believe that God recognizes all marriages regardless of religion just as he recongnizes us all to be His children.

 

More about religion.. Many things are considered sin, many of them I am guilty of. Homosexuality, like it or not, is a sin. God does want there to be love in a marriage and I'm sure that is important to Him but what He doesn't want is for us is to live sin. To me if it is not what God intended for a marriage to be how can it be a marriage? For that reason I do not believe it would be redundant at all to allow for the same rights under a different name, it is a different type of union.

[novaseeker]

But you're basically saying that the state should follow your religion's definition of marriage ... that is basically forcing your religious views on everyone else through the means of state power. I don't mean that in a mean way at all, but that's what it is.

[Imaginary]

Keep the "homosexuality is a sin" debate out of here, save it for another thread. This isn't the point of this thread, and I don't want to start a bible passage war right now, so keep this out of here, for the separation of church and state's sake.

 

And not everyone follows your religion (or a religion) so let the churches handle marriage however they want to. (You don't see me in a pro-gay marriage campain in front of a church) No one is forcing your church to recognize same-sex marriages.

[ShySoul]

Guys, just a reminder to stay civil and polite. This is a passionate subject for all of us apparently, and a controversally one as well, and thus it is easy to get offended or for tempers to flare. But we are all entitled to our own opinions. Everyone's opinion is fair and should be heard. We aren't trying to convince or change anyone's minds, just trying to have a reasonable and intelligent discussion. Say what you want, but please, don't get too personal.

[LiquidCherry]

Imaginary- All opinions aside religion is probably one of the big reasons why gay marriages haven't been legalized, the other being homophobia. I'm not homophobic. Just as the title of this thread indicates this is a debate. In order to debate you must support your opinion. As my position is based on a religious point of view it was necessary to mention, especially since ShySoul brought it up. His statement deserved a response.

 

I haven't attacked you in any way, or anyone for that matter. If you read all of my posts on this thread you would know I am bisexual. If you knew me you would know I have 2 gay friends. Do they know my position on this issue? Yes. Do they care? No. Neither one of them have any intentions of marrying me; it is just something we disagreed on and moved on from.

 

novaseeker- Good point and I have no rebuttle. Still feel the same though. Debates usually only sway those who haven't made up their mind yet.

[Dako]

I was watching TV the other day, and I saw this channel where they were talking/debating about "legalising gay marriges" in Portugal. People would phone there and talk about what they thought and stuff...

 

This was where the word debate came from in the original post.

[Imaginary]

Ok, my post might have come out as aggressive, but it wasn't my intention to offend you. So my apologies.

 

I haven't attacked you in any way, or anyone for that matter. If you read all of my posts on this thread you would know I am bisexual. If you knew me you would know I have 2 gay friends. Do they know my position on this issue? Yes. Do they care? No. Neither one of them have any intentions of marrying me; it is just something we disagreed on and moved on from.

 

Yeah, I know you are bisexual, but I wasn't accussing you of being homophobic.

 

But my intention isn't to have everyone pro-gay marriage. I understand your beliefs, and don't really want churches to change their views on holy marriages, but marriage is a civil matter too.

 

Also, what about religions that are pro-same sex marriages, wouldn't that be discriminatory on both sexuality and religion?

[xtina]

bah religion is NO excuse. Have you noticed that bascially everything, every excuse is by the law of the bible? I mean come on, the bible can be intrepeted in soooooo many ways! Doesn't the bible also say to respect people? why not respect those who want to be married by church? being gay is no sin. Bush kills people and yet he was married by the church I believe.

 

Being gay is somewhat no choice either. You can't force someone to marry a woman when they dont want to, when they only love men. I guess the church would have a horrible reputation if letting gay people marry.

 

Civil matters? what about civil rights? what about the right of freedom of speech? the right to choose... I'm going very political here