Last edited:
CNN Vote on homosexual mariage
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
Toxick
Splat
Re: Re: CNN Vote on homosexual mariage
Because marriage is an already existing institution which is been in existence since the dawn of civilizatoin.
If we start redefining crap for every single alternative group that wants to redefine it, then what the hell good is it? And where does it stop?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gay civil unions. If Bruce and Clarence want to be 'partners' and legally bind themselves to one another so they can file jointly on their taxes, or so Frank can leech of Tom's benefits, that's fine.
I'm never one to tell someone what they can and can't do in their bedroom and with whom - or what. But Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It always has been, and there's no need to redefine it.
Originally posted by ememdee19
Why?Who cares if homosexuals wanna marry each other and who are we to say they can't???:shrug:
Because marriage is an already existing institution which is been in existence since the dawn of civilizatoin.
If we start redefining crap for every single alternative group that wants to redefine it, then what the hell good is it? And where does it stop?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gay civil unions. If Bruce and Clarence want to be 'partners' and legally bind themselves to one another so they can file jointly on their taxes, or so Frank can leech of Tom's benefits, that's fine.
I'm never one to tell someone what they can and can't do in their bedroom and with whom - or what. But Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It always has been, and there's no need to redefine it.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Sorry... but I had to vote "No" on technical reasons. I think the government should pass a law that states that religious marriages may only be performed in accordance with each church's beliefs. Civil marriages may be performed for any couple regardless of sex.
As I've said before, I don't think that a goverment so obsessed with maintaining a seperation of church and state should be able to tell a church who they can and can't marry, and you can bet your a$$ that if gay marriages become officially legal you'll have gays suing churches to allow them to marry within the church.
On the other hand, of Bush does want to limit marriages to heterosexual couples, then he should also get a law passed that makes it illegal to offer different benefits or priviledges to non-married couples than to married ones.
As I've said before, I don't think that a goverment so obsessed with maintaining a seperation of church and state should be able to tell a church who they can and can't marry, and you can bet your a$$ that if gay marriages become officially legal you'll have gays suing churches to allow them to marry within the church.
On the other hand, of Bush does want to limit marriages to heterosexual couples, then he should also get a law passed that makes it illegal to offer different benefits or priviledges to non-married couples than to married ones.
Pookie
Ghetto Fabulous
Re: Re: Re: CNN Vote on homosexual mariage
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 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
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>
- mar·riage·abil·i·ty /"mar-i-j&-'bi-l&-tE also "mer-/ noun
- mar·riage·able /'mar-i-j&-b&l also 'mer-/ adjective
Def. 1 & 2 apply to your comment, Tox but I still don't agree that the "alternative" group of people you refer to are trying to redefine the meaning of marriage.
Why can't they live happily ever after, too?
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 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
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>
- mar·riage·abil·i·ty /"mar-i-j&-'bi-l&-tE also "mer-/ noun
- mar·riage·able /'mar-i-j&-b&l also 'mer-/ adjective
Def. 1 & 2 apply to your comment, Tox but I still don't agree that the "alternative" group of people you refer to are trying to redefine the meaning of marriage.
Why can't they live happily ever after, too?
SxyPrincess
New Member
Be nice, Em!Originally posted by ememdee19
I don't think I'd associate with the likes of an ignorant scumbag in the first place.
Tool.
Oh yeah, after 2A told her to catch AIDS.
I guess first we need to define "marriage". If it's a religious institution, then Larry and I aren't "married" because there was no religion involved when we got married, nor is there now. Separation of church and state is a powerful rejoinder to the objection to gay marriage. Bush can state his personal religious beliefs all he wants, but at the end of the day, marriage is a legal state, not a religious one, and the two should be kept separate.
SxyPrincess
New Member
I didn't catch that.Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oh yeah, after 2A told her to catch AIDS.
Party on...
Toxick
Splat
Re: Re: Re: Re: CNN Vote on homosexual mariage
That's exactly what they're trying to do. They're not angling for Civil Unions. They don't want Secular Partnerships. They aren't going for State Endorsed Juxtapositions
They want Marriage.
And given the definition of Marriage - the way it has been since Oog clumped Ag on the head and dragged her by her hair back to his cave - that's not what it is - and I don't think we should redefine it, just because it's convenient for a vocal minority.
Apparently you missed the part where I said that I have no problem with them having their own legally recognized entity. But "Marriage", as such, ain't broke - so let's not fix it.
I'm all for them living happily ever after - but, if you start dicking with the system, and redefining things for one alternative group, eventually the others are going to start clamoring for their own piece of the pie.
Why can't I marry my chicken? Why can't I marry both Myrtle AND Flo? Why can't Bruce, and James, and Mark, and Steve, and Floyd, and Harry all have a union recognized by the state? After all if we're going to redefine marriage to include one alternative, we're going to have to include them ALL.
That's exactly what they're trying to do. They're not angling for Civil Unions. They don't want Secular Partnerships. They aren't going for State Endorsed Juxtapositions
They want Marriage.
And given the definition of Marriage - the way it has been since Oog clumped Ag on the head and dragged her by her hair back to his cave - that's not what it is - and I don't think we should redefine it, just because it's convenient for a vocal minority.
Apparently you missed the part where I said that I have no problem with them having their own legally recognized entity. But "Marriage", as such, ain't broke - so let's not fix it.
I'm all for them living happily ever after - but, if you start dicking with the system, and redefining things for one alternative group, eventually the others are going to start clamoring for their own piece of the pie.
Why can't I marry my chicken? Why can't I marry both Myrtle AND Flo? Why can't Bruce, and James, and Mark, and Steve, and Floyd, and Harry all have a union recognized by the state? After all if we're going to redefine marriage to include one alternative, we're going to have to include them ALL.
Here's something interesting:
In my People magazine last week there was a story about a guy who had a sex change. He was married with two little boys, but had serious gender identity issues so he had himself surgically altered to become a woman.
We'll leave all that aside for now because here's the interesting part:
Now I might have the story wrong, but it was my impression that, post-surgery, he and his wife didn't divorce - they stayed married. Yet this guy is legally a woman - says so on his "birth" certificate and his driver's license. So they, legally, have a same-sex marriage. They're raising their kids together and cohabitating the same as they always did. No word on whether they've become "lesbians" or not.
So I'm just curious, will the government make them divorce?
In my People magazine last week there was a story about a guy who had a sex change. He was married with two little boys, but had serious gender identity issues so he had himself surgically altered to become a woman.
We'll leave all that aside for now because here's the interesting part:
Now I might have the story wrong, but it was my impression that, post-surgery, he and his wife didn't divorce - they stayed married. Yet this guy is legally a woman - says so on his "birth" certificate and his driver's license. So they, legally, have a same-sex marriage. They're raising their kids together and cohabitating the same as they always did. No word on whether they've become "lesbians" or not.
So I'm just curious, will the government make them divorce?
Or Anna Nicole Smith?
Are you all still puzzling about the two legally married women from the People magazine story or does nobody want to talk about this?
You guys, quit threatening each other and get back to the topic at hand. I'm really interested in all opinions on this subject.