There has been much controversy with gay "marriage" and rights associated with it. Health care for partners, beneficiary rights for partners, ability to adopt children as a couple, etc..the list can go on and on. What are your opinions and feelings on these issues?
Should Gay "Marriage" be renamed something else?
Quote:
This.
Originally posted by
BBW Talks Toys
As a Christian, I'm offended by other Christians who spew the "one man and one woman" garbage. Straight couples have destroyed marriage already.
And calling it anything but 'marriage' would make it a different thing than what the straight people take for granted, which implies a lesser thing, which is fundamentally wrong. Words have power.
11/02/2010
(I was trying to edit this, but I couldn't because of the post below me... which is NO PROBLEM... I just cut and paste!)
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" Christian and I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see, even remotely, how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of MY marriage. They have nothing to do with me.
Personally, I think if two people can get married and stay together for 50 years in a loving and committed marriage, I don't care who it is that is married.
I'd like to see politicians use a platform that actually relates to governmental issues (i.e., national security, education, etc...) as opposed to social issues (like gay marriage and abortion).
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" Christian and I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see, even remotely, how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of MY marriage. They have nothing to do with me.
Personally, I think if two people can get married and stay together for 50 years in a loving and committed marriage, I don't care who it is that is married.
I'd like to see politicians use a platform that actually relates to governmental issues (i.e., national security, education, etc...) as opposed to social issues (like gay marriage and abortion).
11/02/2010
Marriage isn't about a piece of paper that says "Marriage" or any other name across it but why exactly should it be any different if the individuals were of the same sex then it is if they are of opposite sexes? We are all still human beings with a heart filled with love for another individual. Race, age, gender, etc...just society trying to get it's two cents in. We are all the same loving individuals regardless.
11/02/2010
Quote:
It should be called whatever the people involved in the union wanna call it regardless of orientation.
Originally posted by
Lif3sambiguity
There has been much controversy with gay "marriage" and rights associated with it. Health care for partners, beneficiary rights for partners, ability to adopt children as a couple, etc..the list can go on and on. What are your opinions and feelings
...
There has been much controversy with gay "marriage" and rights associated with it. Health care for partners, beneficiary rights for partners, ability to adopt children as a couple, etc..the list can go on and on. What are your opinions and feelings on these issues?
11/03/2010
To be honest I'd love to see a time where marriage or union can include as many individuals as the participants feel comfortable with. Why can't a man have more than one wife, as long as all the women are well cared for and are happy? Why can't a woman have more than one husband, as long as the men are well cared for and happy? Why is it horrible for a man to marry the man he loves or a woman to marry the woman she loves? Why not have a system that allows people to decide for themselves what makes them happy? Sure there will be issues but there are issues with marriage between two heterosexual people as it is! Why not a legal marriage where each person's rights and priviledges are spelled out...just like marriage vows are supposed to be? We have pre-nup agreements already. I fail to see how gay marriage invalidates my heterosexual marriage and I fail to see how the potential for me to have two husbands invalidates someone elses marriage choice.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
11/03/2010
Quote:
Well said!
Originally posted by
Airen Wolf
To be honest I'd love to see a time where marriage or union can include as many individuals as the participants feel comfortable with. Why can't a man have more than one wife, as long as all the women are well cared for and are happy? Why can't a
...
To be honest I'd love to see a time where marriage or union can include as many individuals as the participants feel comfortable with. Why can't a man have more than one wife, as long as all the women are well cared for and are happy? Why can't a woman have more than one husband, as long as the men are well cared for and happy? Why is it horrible for a man to marry the man he loves or a woman to marry the woman she loves? Why not have a system that allows people to decide for themselves what makes them happy? Sure there will be issues but there are issues with marriage between two heterosexual people as it is! Why not a legal marriage where each person's rights and priviledges are spelled out...just like marriage vows are supposed to be? We have pre-nup agreements already. I fail to see how gay marriage invalidates my heterosexual marriage and I fail to see how the potential for me to have two husbands invalidates someone elses marriage choice.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
11/13/2010
Quote:
There are polygyny and polyandry "marriages" all over the world, and they are "legal" for their respective cultures/countries. I use quotation marks because it's all culturally(and legally) subjective. Polygyny is very common in muslim countries but not polyandry. Likewise, there are African tribes that practice polyandry but not polygyny. I really don't think the existence of one really impacts the happiness of the other. Since all laws are culturally and socially defined anyway, then it's just a matter of time or persuasion until they change (for better or worse from your point of view).
Originally posted by
Airen Wolf
To be honest I'd love to see a time where marriage or union can include as many individuals as the participants feel comfortable with. Why can't a man have more than one wife, as long as all the women are well cared for and are happy? Why can't a
...
To be honest I'd love to see a time where marriage or union can include as many individuals as the participants feel comfortable with. Why can't a man have more than one wife, as long as all the women are well cared for and are happy? Why can't a woman have more than one husband, as long as the men are well cared for and happy? Why is it horrible for a man to marry the man he loves or a woman to marry the woman she loves? Why not have a system that allows people to decide for themselves what makes them happy? Sure there will be issues but there are issues with marriage between two heterosexual people as it is! Why not a legal marriage where each person's rights and priviledges are spelled out...just like marriage vows are supposed to be? We have pre-nup agreements already. I fail to see how gay marriage invalidates my heterosexual marriage and I fail to see how the potential for me to have two husbands invalidates someone elses marriage choice.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
Then again I think co-habitation should be a choice as well, and legally recognized. Not everyone NEEDS to be married to feel committed but for those that do then it should be available for them.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to commit themselves to another person regardless of their gender or orientation (or lack thereof). All I really require is all participants to be legally able to decide for themselves what they wish to do, and that the participants be able to communicate their willingness to enter into such an arrangement.
The laws are what I think are the most important. I don't understand an obsession over the semantics of it. I am married, and I would't care one bit if my marriage certificate said "union" or "partnership" or whatever. I value the love of my legal, social-unit partner (ie wife), and that I have all of the legal rights with her in our marriage/union/partner ship/etc.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet...
11/23/2010
Quote:
Thank you, I think the majority of supporters, Christian and non-Christian alike, will agree.
Originally posted by
BBW Talks Toys
As a Christian, I'm offended by other Christians who spew the "one man and one woman" garbage. Straight couples have destroyed marriage already.
The dictionary (The Merriam-WEBSTER Dictionary, people) defines marriage as: n 1 : the state of being united to another person as a usu. contractual relationship according to law or custom 2 : a wedding ceremony and attendant festivities 3 : a close union.
Why throw such a joyous thing through the thesaurus machine when it's not necessary? The name we give something, though to the uncaring eye may seen innocuous, is actually one of the most important things. Marriage by any other name would still be marriage, but would always hold the stigma of being the "lesser" thing, the thing that almost, was marriage.
12/07/2010
Wikipedia said Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. And whether its a man and a man or a woman and another woman or two people of opposite sex its still marriage just because its two men or two women don't make it NOT a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
12/08/2010
When they tried calling it a "union" in Vermont (I think that was the state) and giving it the "same rights," it didn't work. Why not? Because places like hospitals saw "civil union" and not "marriage" and and wouldn't let a same-sex spouse in. Who wants to haul a lawyer to the hospital every time they want to visit their spouse? but now it's "marriage" there.
12/13/2010
Quote:
amen to that!!!!
Originally posted by
BBW Talks Toys
(I was trying to edit this, but I couldn't because of the post below me... which is NO PROBLEM... I just cut and paste!)
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" ...
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" ...
(I was trying to edit this, but I couldn't because of the post below me... which is NO PROBLEM... I just cut and paste!)
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" Christian and I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see, even remotely, how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of MY marriage. They have nothing to do with me.
Personally, I think if two people can get married and stay together for 50 years in a loving and committed marriage, I don't care who it is that is married.
I'd like to see politicians use a platform that actually relates to governmental issues (i.e., national security, education, etc...) as opposed to social issues (like gay marriage and abortion).
I'll elaborate a little too. I think that straight couples have ruined marriage long before now. I'm a very "liberal" Christian and I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see, even remotely, how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of MY marriage. They have nothing to do with me.
Personally, I think if two people can get married and stay together for 50 years in a loving and committed marriage, I don't care who it is that is married.
I'd like to see politicians use a platform that actually relates to governmental issues (i.e., national security, education, etc...) as opposed to social issues (like gay marriage and abortion).
12/16/2010