Obama stops defending DOMA
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
srs?
taxes, benefits, everything.
yayayayayayaayaaayayaayayaayayaayyayayayyayayayaayaayayayayayayay
But the why use the same word for the legal aspect as for the religious one?
Also why should being married wield any benefits for anyone?
Marriage was never only part of the Abrahamic religions.
The Romans performed same-sex marriages before the introduction of Christianity.
I think gay marriage would get a lot less resistance if they just changed what it was called.
Well if a conclusion is made about the benefits of marriage, then great.
The question on this issue really is:
"Why should straight couples get special benefits?"
It's a matter of equality.
I understand that and I personally am all for gay marriage, however I think legislation in favor of it would be more accepted if the word marriage wasn't used because many christians associate it with a holy covenant.
Marriage is described as a holy union, though. If I'm not mistaken isn't that in the whole process, it being called a holy union? I think my point is that no matter what it's called it's possible that the same people who oppose it now won't change their view just because of what it's called.
The problem is recognition. If you call it a civil union then it likely won't be recognized by other states. Furthermore, the federal government does not recognize civil unions.
These arguments are so asinine. I don't say that to indicate asininity (real word? idk theres no red squiggly under it) on behalf of the posters, but really? I mean. REALLY. Its like... I can't stand the argument "technically marriage was practiced such and such and such." Yes, ok, I guess if we want to go all Ne and say there's more than one truth etc, then sure Christianity didn't create the marriage. But it sure holds the monopoly on it.
Besides, the word marriage has meaning to it, union doesn't. And union reminds me of union station, which is like, ugly.
Goddamnit, I've involved myself in the argument now.
Besides, the word marriage has meaning to it, union doesn't. And union reminds me of union station, which is like, ugly.
Goddamnit, I've involved myself in the argument now.
Well, it would still be a same sex union. The italicized part is what people have trouble with.
I also didn't know that Rome performed same sex marriages; we're pretty behind then if it was acceptable in Rome. I've also heard that homosexuality was a social norm in ancient Greece. Like in that men used to have male mistresses or something.
Some homosexuals want to be marry under a church. There are churches who are accepting gay marriages. We need to redefine what's a civil union and marriage then.
Civil Unions should have the same rights as marriage. Marriage can remain religious if they wish, but churches that allow gay marriages should be allow to bless the gay couple under the symbolic name. Heterosexual couples should be allow to form civil unions if they wish(this applying to atheists who do not wish to participate in said religious ritual but are entitled to the same benefits).
The problem with that is that the right wing(some not all) and organizations like NOM only use the argument of "marriage only being religious" as a blanket, to cover their real intentions.
In all honesty, they are simply afraid of change and "the moral decay" of society based on their religious moral code. Society is still largely homophobic.
Civil Unions should have the same rights as marriage. Marriage can remain religious if they wish, but churches that allow gay marriages should be allow to bless the gay couple under the symbolic name. Heterosexual couples should be allow to form civil unions if they wish(this applying to atheists who do not wish to participate in said religious ritual but are entitled to the same benefits).
The problem with that is that the right wing(some not all) and organizations like NOM only use the argument of "marriage only being religious" as a blanket, to cover their real intentions.
In all honesty, they are simply afraid of change and "the moral decay" of society based on their religious moral code. Society is still largely homophobic.
These arguments are so asinine. I don't say that to indicate asininity (real word? idk theres no red squiggly under it) on behalf of the posters, but really? I mean. REALLY. Its like... I can't stand the argument "technically marriage was practiced such and such and such." Yes, ok, I guess if we want to go all Ne and say there's more than one truth etc, then sure Christianity didn't create the marriage. But it sure holds the monopoly on it.
Besides, the word marriage has meaning to it, union doesn't. And union reminds me of union station, which is like, ugly.
Goddamnit, I've involved myself in the argument now.
Lol, it wouldn't have to be called union [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]. It could technically be called anything, it's just the problem with calling it marriage is the admittedly ignorant yet true assumption of "Holy matrimony" within the christian community, which makes it hard for these laws to pass.
Also though, the large amount of the gay society is heterophobic. I don't say that to be funny, I am serious. I myself am still slightly heterophobic, (though I'm getting better), so we must be careful when we are going through these defining eras, to watch where we step.
[MENTION=3255]Sali[/MENTION]
can we call it a mutual gathering of presupposed with consummation ceremony? Then the actual term would be a MGoPCC
or, MGPC for short. (pronounced EM-Gop-ta-ka)
sounds russian. russians are cool.
[MENTION=3255]Sali[/MENTION]
can we call it a mutual gathering of presupposed with consummation ceremony? Then the actual term would be a MGoPCC
or, MGPC for short. (pronounced EM-Gop-ta-ka)
sounds russian. russians are cool.