I am probably going to get raked over the coals for this one

riddle me this batman...

Published on November 4, 2004 By alison watkins In Politics

Before I post what I am about to post I want to let everyone know that I am a 23 year old straight female....

What is the big deal about marriage when 50% of it ends up in divorce anyways? Some gay couples I know have been together longer than a lot of straight couples.....

Doesn't human companionship conquer all....I mean I'm getting married and I'm very happy to start this road ahead with my man...shouldn't everyone; gay, straight, bi...whatever deserve this too??

Comments (Page 3)

DPS

on Nov 05, 2004

" This is the spin from the left. What is marriage currently? A man and a woman. Any law stating marriage as a man and a woman is only stating WHAT CURRENTLY IS! You can't BAN something that doesn't exist. To ban something implies to take away that which already is, and this is not the case. "

Marriage is not clearly defined. A marirage is decided and defined by the 2 people involved and their religous nature.

Legally yes I concede it is between a man and woman. But it should be exteneded to 2 indviduals. By making a constitutional amendment they are banning other states from changing this. It would be an opinion by the Right Wing being forced on the whole of the United States on a very personal matter nonetheless. Now if that isn't theocratical I don't know what is.

"Why does it matter if it is called marriage or not? If something by another name resolves the inequity what's the problem?"

I don't think there is a problem I just don't see the reason of copying and pasting the benefits and changing the name. Yes some gays make it unreasonable by insisting it be called marriage instead of civil union even though they could solve their problems by griping although I can see why they are, even if it hinders their agenda. Then again why don't we change your legal union's name into civil union. I mean we don' t want the government to have control over a purely religous term do we?

Draginol

on Nov 06, 2004

Statistically, most proponents of gay marriage are not actually married (according to the exit polls).

It's kind of like people who don't play golf trying to argue for a rule change in how golf is played.

I support civil union rights for gays. But gay marriage? No. Words mean things. And it's more of that "in your face, we don't respect your sensibilities, right wing red neck bigot losers!" that cost Kerry the election.

T B

on Nov 06, 2004

Marriage is not clearly defined.

mar·riage n.

the state of being married; relation between husband and wife.

hus·band

a man joined to a woman by marriage; a male spouse.

wife

A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse.

Looks pretty clear to me (it is defined) . I agree, I don't see why they don't just accept Civil Unions and end the debate. Pushing for the word marriage seems to place the whole thing in jeopardy (as far as apparent majority opinion)

Daiwa

on Nov 06, 2004

Personally, the notion of gay marriage doesn't frighten me in the least. I appear to be in the minority on this issue, however.

Given that many Democrats are citing the sentiment against gay marriage as a decisive factor in their election post-mortems (and huffing about how shamelessly the Republicans played on homophobia for political gain), I find it quite interesting that even in the strongly blue states where they were on the ballot, the gay-marriage-related amendments were favored by more voters than voted for Kerry, by a substantial margin. So I think the Dems need to re-think the whole thing. Not that they will.

Cheers,
Daiwa

whoman69

on Nov 06, 2004

The problem with gay marriage is that marriage is not just an acknowlegement of a relationship, it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in. For most in this country that would be the Christan god, but since we have this freedom of religion thing that shouldn't matter. What does matter is that by putting the term marriage beside a gay marriage, you put a religious connotation next to it. By doing that you force those religions to accept homosexuality as ok. Most religions consider it a sin. We should not hate the sinner, but the sin. All of us have sinned.
I have no problem with a civil union with all the rights of law that a marriage has, but cannot accept the religious connection. Its not surprising that ammendments to ban gay marriages passed. Recent national polling suggests that only a third of the population favors gay marriage. What I have a problem with is that these votes to ban gay marriage were a transparent attempt to mobilize the conservative right to vote in greater strength and win the election for Bush and the Republicans. The issue would pull even those from states who did not have a referendum. Kerry, like Bush, was publically opposed to gay marriage. What is not clear is whether the President would back a proposal for civil unions. I have a feeling he would not for fear of alienating his base. That same recent poll shows that 37% of Americans oppose even civil unions for gays. Do these people believe that by denying homosexuals that in frustration they will go straight? By having civil unions, states would be promoting non-promiscuity amongst the gay community which in turn would lower the risk of AIDS. Jesus taught compassion. He forgave a prostitute, why not a homosexual. Focus a little more on the New Testament.

JE0192

on Nov 06, 2004

mar·riage n.

You want to play this one by the dictionary... hmmm

Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (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
From Webster’s

T B

on Nov 06, 2004

I think the Dems need to re-think the whole thing. Not that they will

Clinton already told them this (he told Kerry to strongly state he supported Civil Unions and was against gay marriage). Eh, why listen to a two term President though, what the hell could he know?

T B

on Nov 06, 2004

From Webster’s

Not from my Websters, or any other dictionary I can find, online or otherwise. It is interesting that the first definition has added "contractual relationship recognized by law". I wonder if they'll remove the second one once states define it. Guess that just shows that all those people that don't want it re-defined had cause to vote in those amendments. Marriage has been a man + woman since the 1750's.

it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in

So atheists aren't married?

JE0192

on Nov 06, 2004

Not from my Websters, or any other dictionary I can find, online or otherwise.

It’s in the new version of Webster’s (and online : Link). Oxford dictionary also amended its definition of marriage last year. Wether you like it or not (or pass many laws against it), the term and concept of gay marriages are part of the general culture of the occidental world and won’t disappear.

msladydeath

on Nov 06, 2004

This is the opinion I gave in my blog (Glimps into an insane mind.... Mine, part 1 politics) Link

Gay marrige.... I think civil union would be a better word for all married partners that the cerimonies were not performed in a church, Civil Union should be what the Government recognizes, leave mariage to the church. Would it be possible for a Gay couple to get married, sure, but I think you should able to be married without the states regognition of it, or married and Civilly United, with the gov reconizing the CU, or just Civilly United with the Gov recognition. After all, quite freqently, a male/female couple does get church married and forgets to file the paperwork with the gov, and the church still recognizes the mariage. That would seperate the church from the state, save the "sanctaty of mariage" and still allow GL couples to be legally united as a couple.. middle again.

Daiwa

on Nov 06, 2004

I side with msladydeath. Makes perfect sense to this conservative.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Nov 06, 2004

Reply #35 By: whoman69 - 11/6/2004 1:41:14 AM
The problem with gay marriage is that marriage is not just an acknowlegement of a relationship, it is one that is recognized by whatever deity you happen to believe in. For most in this country that would be the Christan god, but since we have this freedom of religion thing that shouldn't matter. What does matter is that by putting the term marriage beside a gay marriage, you put a religious connotation next to it. By doing that you force those religions to accept homosexuality as ok. Most religions consider it a sin. We should not hate the sinner, but the sin. All of us have sinned.

I could not have said it better myself.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

Government make legal binding for marraige. Recongnization of a legal vow/binding is not the same as recongnization of love.

First off why are they using a term that has normally connotated love and religion for years? Second off if it isn't recognizing love then why should it be able to judge one more worthy then another and furthermore dictating what marriage is.

Have you read what I wrote? You go on and on about something I explained several times. I said the issue at hand now is not about legal rights. If it is about legal right, then Kerry, Clinton and Bush have already endosed the notion of civil union between gay couples. This new binding shall grant couples all the equal rights and responsibilities. But no, the arguement is about the naming of this binding. "Marriage" versus "Civil union". So I am not understanding why you keep talking about "worth". Here is the problem you are not seeing. Most American support the idea of civil union, but not gay marriage. Because civil union grants exactly the same benefits and responsibilities as normal marraige, your argument of legal inequility falls apart. However, government has no right to tell people how to define something. This is the problem when someone insists that the government must call a civil union, a marraige. Then US government would be playing a role of "defining language and culture."

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

And the Religous Right shouldn't be pushing it down the liberal states throat by trying to amend constitution or making laws banning all Gay Marriage everywhere.

Why not?

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"Because civil union grants exactly the same benefits and responsibilities as normal marraige, your argument of legal inequility falls apart. "

But why? Your just changing one word. I have no problem with granting them civil unions to them that have the same rights... but honestly what's the point. To protect the meaning of marriage? Then why don't you solve the whole problem all together by stopping government from using the term marriage and applying the term civil union to all these government recognized unions. That would solve everything because then the government would't be trespassing on such a 'sacred' bond in any way because it wouldn't be using the termed.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!