Poll: Who truly owns the right to the word "marriage"?

[Ancientgamer]

To go further into my statement. Marriage isn't about love, it's only fairly recently the that's become a requirement or reason for marriage. I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to love each other. But they don't need marriage to do that. Marriage is about forming a relationship under god. Homosexuals are just interested in the title for some gosh-darned reason.

If the government forces churches to marry gays, which is completely against their ideology, that moves into the realm of taking away the churches rights, not defending the gays.

 

[jamesworkshop]

The Church fights tooth and nail for the sanctity of it. The State has a set of legal rights and a contract named after it.

First amendment of the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If "marriage" is a religious institution, then it would be logical to let the Church have it, but there are legal items tied to the word as well which are governed by the State.

Since it is just a word, who gets it? I voted Church.

Which Church?

 

[I Am Wingnut]

I vote for whoever isn't trying to keep it from someone just for being different...marriage really has no meaning anymore, so it doesn't matter who has it. If two people want to be together, scrap the paper and just do it.

But if someone absolutely has to have it, then give it to the gay community. Hopefully they won't be too vengeful of the brainless masses saying they're wrong.

 

[DrDeath3191]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

This.

 

[lava_lamp]

i own it

 

[Agayek]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

Very nicely put.

My take on it:

Marriage is a religious ceremony, with everything that entails, including the ability to deny it to someone who doesn't mesh with the religion.

That said, the state should allow for civil unions outside the bounds of marriage. The only problem with marriage as it is now, is that the state recognizes marriage as a civil union and gives them various rights, such as "next of kin" status and all that. Last I heard, those same rights are denied to gays and whoever else the Church refuses to marry. That needs to be addressed.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I think this is why in England we have 'civil partnerships' for same sex couple to get around this argument...

 

[A random person]

State. Marriages are a state thing and the only valid reason for having them now is to protect children you may have.

 

[Lunar Shadow]

.

I really hope this mostly blank post is on purpose, because it's brilliant if it is.
Like it was stated above, it's a word, it belongs to no one.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

This.

Definitely this. I feel that any government action that forces private church organizations to marry people who do not fit their religious criteria for marriage is a move towards taking away Church's rights. But I guess that's no longer the popular angle to this particular situation.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

Nobody. But if I had to pick from those two then it would have to be the state.

Nobody. You heard it here first!

Actually we heard it there first.

 

[elemenetal150]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

except that there is a such things as civil marriage and it is different then civil unions. Civil unions don't give you the same rights or privileges as marriage. Even after one gets married to someone else in the church they have to be married by the state, usually they do it at the same time.

The vast majority of homosexuals that want to get married want a civil marriage and not a religious one. I agree with the church being able to choose who they want to marry and not marry, but I don't agree with a state not marrying two people based on a religious perception, when the two people in question may not want religion involved in anyway shape or form.

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

It is a word. No one owns it. It is impossible to own.

 

[Leorex]

no one owns it.

 

[VitalSigns]

Marriage is a legal thing completely, however to be Marriage does not suddenly prove two people are in love, there is way too much importance on the idea of marriage. Gays want to get married and im cool with that, but why fight to have it be a christian marriage? whats the point? People can live long happy lives and be Legally married, they can elope, they can have a marriage that has no religious tones at all.

Marriage = State

Christian Marriage Ceremony = Church.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

Didn't the church (as we know it) only get involved in the marriage business at around 1500ad anyway? I've heard that somewhere.

regardless, marriage belongs to every consenting adult.

marraige a meaningless word? try telling that to most of society. the reason gay people want the word is because it has immense cultural value, and using any other word means that their union does not have the same cultural value of marriage

edit: some gay people want christian marriages because.......... some gay people are christian. also, believe it or not, there are churches that would gladly marry gay people

edit: thought i would bold something for the hell of it

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

To go further into my statement. Marriage isn't about love, it's only fairly recently the that's become a requirement or reason for marriage. I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to love each other. But they don't need marriage to do that. Marriage is about forming a relationship under god. Homosexuals are just interested in the title for some gosh-darned reason.

If the government forces churches to marry gays, which is completely against their ideology, that moves into the realm of taking away the churches rights, not defending the gays.

What this guy says.

 

[Padfoot13]

marriage belongs to people who are in love, and marrium webster, she owns all the words.

 

[LaughingTarget]

The State has no business dictating who we can have relationships with. Give them the power to lay claim to rights that we already have as if it is the State which is generous to grant them to us, the power can be used to take it away. Marriage has no business in the State. We need not ask its permission, give it tribute nor should we get special privileges over others of society because we enter into the arrangement with another. The State has no rightful power to either support or deny marriage around sexuality, that isn't the purpose of a State actor.

The State merely exists to punish those who infringe on the life, liberty and property of another and to pool resources for common defense from external forces. Anything else, like creating laws and rules to marriage, are extraneous.

Marriage is a contract between two willing parties, the only role the State has is to enforce that contract should one party violate the terms.

The Church doesn't own it either. People are free to label their relationships however they please. If I want to call marriage "ubliguk", then that's up to me. It doesn't change what that relationship is.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

 

[Padfoot13]

The State has no business dictating who we can have relationships with. Give them the power to lay claim to rights that we already have as if it is the State which is generous to grant them to us, the power can be used to take it away. Marriage has no business in the State. We need not ask its permission, give it tribute nor should we get special privileges over others of society because we enter into the arrangement with another. The State has no rightful power to either support or deny marriage around sexuality, that isn't the purpose of a State actor.

The State merely exists to punish those who infringe on the life, liberty and property of another and to pool resources for common defense from external forces. Anything else, like creating laws and rules to marriage, are extraneous.

Marriage is a contract between two willing parties, the only role the State has is to enforce that contract should one party violate the terms.

The Church doesn't own it either. People are free to label their relationships however they please. If I want to call marriage "ubliguk", then that's up to me. It doesn't change what that relationship is.

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

what he said.