Poll: "Marriage" key in "Gay Marriage"?

[Aris Khandr]

"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:22.

"Marriage" is the sacred covenant between a man, woman and God to be joined together under Him and made whole (that whole woman being made from part of a man thing).
Really, all I'm saying is the word is incorrect. I have no qualms with homosexuals getting "married", but technically they wouldn't be by a member of the clergy. Thus, a civil union works just fine.

I wouldn't say it's "sad" for religions to be protected in the US. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and, while you may not agree with them, they should be respected. "Land of the free" and all that, yes? The First Amendment? I despise racism, yet I still respect the beliefs of a racist, despite my disagreement with them. If I knew a racist shop-owner, I would simply not purchase from them. There are equally good shops to purchase from elsewhere. Forcing them to serve would not be pleasant for any parties involved.

This is devolving into dangerous territory, however, and I fear I may not continue this conversation if it is fated to curdle into a pathetic battle of religions.

Was the Bible written in English? No. Is the root of the word "marriage" Aramaic or Hebrew in origin? Also no. The root word is Latin, and existed in their ceremonies to their own gods well before they had any contact with the Jews. So where, exactly, does your claim that the Bible's definition of "marriage" is the only definition stem? At no point in all of history has Christianity been the only one who could hand out marriages.

 

[ten.to.ten]

"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:22.

"Marriage" is the sacred covenant between a man, woman and God to be joined together under Him and made whole (that whole woman being made from part of a man thing).
Really, all I'm saying is the word is incorrect. I have no qualms with homosexuals getting "married", but technically they wouldn't be by a member of the clergy. Thus, a civil union works just fine.

I wouldn't say it's "sad" for religions to be protected in the US. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and, while you may not agree with them, they should be respected. "Land of the free" and all that, yes? The First Amendment? I despise racism, yet I still respect the beliefs of a racist, despite my disagreement with them. If I knew a racist shop-owner, I would simply not purchase from them. There are equally good shops to purchase from elsewhere. Forcing them to serve would not be pleasant for any parties involved.

This is devolving into dangerous territory, however, and I fear I may not continue this conversation if it is fated to curdle into a pathetic battle of religions.

How do you feel about people like judges or public servants marrying couples outside of a religious setting and with no religious involvement, and religions having the autonomy to marry or refuse to marry whoever they want in the setting of their own religions and houses of worship?

 

[ATRAYA]

"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:22.

"Marriage" is the sacred covenant between a man, woman and God to be joined together under Him and made whole (that whole woman being made from part of a man thing).
Really, all I'm saying is the word is incorrect. I have no qualms with homosexuals getting "married", but technically they wouldn't be by a member of the clergy. Thus, a civil union works just fine.

I wouldn't say it's "sad" for religions to be protected in the US. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and, while you may not agree with them, they should be respected. "Land of the free" and all that, yes? The First Amendment? I despise racism, yet I still respect the beliefs of a racist, despite my disagreement with them. If I knew a racist shop-owner, I would simply not purchase from them. There are equally good shops to purchase from elsewhere. Forcing them to serve would not be pleasant for any parties involved.

This is devolving into dangerous territory, however, and I fear I may not continue this conversation if it is fated to curdle into a pathetic battle of religions.

How do you feel about people like judges or public servants marrying couples outside of a religious setting and with no religious involvement, and religions having the autonomy to marry or refuse to marry whoever they want in the setting of their own religions and houses of worship?

I have no problem with civil unions. The semantics was all I'm saying there's a problem with.

 

[ten.to.ten]

I have no problem with civil unions. The semantics was all I'm saying there's a problem with.

Here's where I think the problem is with what you're talking about.

- A marriage is a civil institution that allows a couple to be united as a family under the law. In most countries it is the only legal status that provides for this. For the sake of clarity, I'm going to refer to this as civil marriage. Religion is not a requirement of civil marriage, it is purely a legal institution.

- Holy matrimony, or a religious marriage, is a ceremony that takes place in a church under the rules of that religion. It is the uniting of a couple (in most but not all religions this couple is a man and a woman) under the eyes of that religion and its God(s). In some jurisdiction, a minister of religion is allowed to also record the holy matrimony as a civil marriage, providing that it is consistent with the laws of that jurisdiction (for example, in the US neither person is allowed to be currently married in order for it to be a valid civil marriage, even if the religion allows for polygamy), but in and of themselves, they do not carry legal weight.

- A civil union, also known in some jurisdictions as a civil partnership, registered partnership, or by several other names, is a civil institution which is similar to, but not the same as and legally separate from civil marriage. It is usually intended to give same-sex couples legal rights and recognition without recognising them as married, but in some jurisdictions opposite-sex couples are also allowed to have one. The first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to allow for civil unions was Denmark in 1989. They did not exist before then.

You seem to be confusing civil marriage for civil union, and holy matrimony for civil marriage. It may seem like semantics, but there are huge differences between the three of them.

 

[nyankaty]

I don't understand why marriage has to be a sacred word. I don't understand why an atheist can have a marriage, a marriage which is almost always done "in the eyes of God" but a religious homosexual couple would not be allowed to.

I mean, I am legit confused about why it's even a thing. I think it's the rights that matter, 100%, but I don't understand why that word marriage has to be a thing which is only able to exclude homosexual people. Then again, I also don't understand why anyone would really care about wanting that word, marriage. As long as I have the same rights as someone else, I would not care if it was married, civilly joined, or whatever.

 

[Raikas]

"Marriage" is the sacred covenant between a man, woman and God to be joined together under Him and made whole (that whole woman being made from part of a man thing).
Really, all I'm saying is the word is incorrect. I have no qualms with homosexuals getting "married", but technically they wouldn't be by a member of the clergy. Thus, a civil union works just fine.

But same sex marriages are preformed by clergy of Abrahamic religions.

Not all of them, obviously, but when the Ontario law changed in 2003 the government legally recognized weddings going back to 2001 that had been performed via banns rather than licences, and that's specifically a religious thing. In Ontario at least, the religious element was very much tied to the first recognized same sex marriages.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that a law that forces all religions to marry gay couples is not OK.

And I was taking the piss. The point is that condemning a virtually non-existent point is kind of absurd.

Nobody? I think you'd be surprised.

I'd be surprised at any meaningful movement to do so. If you have evidence of one that qualifies, by all means.

I'm not surprised if you find one or two guys on a social site. but considering you made a broad condemning statement based on this principle....

 

[Gunjester]

The way I see it, we should kick it off like they did (sort of) in the Classical Age. Simply enough, there were three genders of humanity originally: Children of the Sun, Moon and Earth. Sun was two men fused together, Moon was a man and a woman, and Earth was two women. They were all split in halves and now humanity has two genders and different sexualities searching for a suitable "other half".
Now, bisexuals exist, yes, but unless they're also polygamists they need to choose when dating a single person, and many I've met say that they're open to both, but lean to one more than the other. Anyways, not to say that the three-gender origin story is true, but it does encapsulate one key thing people ALWAYS forget: We are different, and that's just fine.
The Gay community has heavily asserted that it should be Gay Marriage and nothing else. I'm from Canada, where it's already legal, but my point in this argument is not "gays shouldn't call it marriage because they don't deserve the term", my point is: "Why do gays want to be the same, when being different but equal is something so much better."
Modern thought seems to revolve around the broken idea that humanity is a singular entity. It's not, it's billions, everyone's different and equal. Being equal and being the same are different as well, and Marriage for so long was defined as "the legal/spiritual joining of a man and a woman", so why change the term? It seems unnecessary, and myself being a straight-leaning bisexual would like to point out that if I did lean the other way, I'd want our own identity for it.

 

[smithy_2045]

The rights are the key, but an important part of that is the right to call it gay marriage. Equal but different just doesn't cut it at the end of the day, because if they're different (even if only in name) it's practically impossible to say they're equal.

 

[Riot3000]

The rights the come with marriage are important because marriage historically speaking is a business transaction and benefits that come with with.

Not to sound sappy but hopefully one day it just be called marriage no need for the gay in front of it.