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

[MusicalFreedom]

Only if it is narrowly tailored to life, liberty and property, which is the only legitimate function a government has. Any action that violates one of those of an individual, even if under the pretense of giving it to another, makes the law or rule illegitimate.

Modern society has unfortunately done little more than change the identity and number of our dictators. These rules are put in play by simple quantitative pluralities and being a member of that plurality is just as much random chance as is being born into the English monarchy.

No democracy that allows the majority of the voters to create rules at the expense of a minority group (racial, ethnic, intellectual, sexual orientation, economic status, etc) is one worth defending.

now I have no idea how to argue with this post because i'm just not intelligent enough, but I kinda like that last bit there. I believe it's called tyranny of the majority, yeah?

 

[MMMATT]

The dictionary

This (property of Mr. Webster)

 

[skcseth]

Jesus does. It says so in teh Bible..

 

[Cliff_m85]

You can't really call an activity like marriage 'sacred' if it can be done through a drive-thru in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator.

 

[Deacon Cole]

They should abolish this evil institution.

 

[Ancientgamer]

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.

Let clarify. I think the state rights granted by civil unions should be expanded to be the same as marriage, so that they are separate, but equal. That seems like a compromise that would give everybody what they want.

Um, why can't a person be homosexual AND a member of a church? Not all gay people (1) are atheists OR (2) wear assless chaps.

You do realize there's even a gay Episcopalian Bishop now, right? And that even Conservative Judaism leaves it up to the Rabbi to decide whether or not to conduct a "religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god" between homosexuals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601247.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson

Not only is that pretty rare, but it's still a massive point of contention in the church. (And various denominations) There is an accepted take on the church's view on homosexuality, let's not get ahead of ourselves. You're presuming one activist movement has already won to form an argument for the other, when in reality it's still pretty fringe.

 

[Jerious1154]

The word marriage belongs to no one, it's a word.

The concept of marriage in the traditional ceremonial sense belongs to the church, which is why it should be legalized. The government should not have the power to deny marriage to homosexuals, however religious institutions should have the right to decide for themselves whether to carry out the ceremony. As far as I can see, that's the only solution that actually maintains a separation of church and state.

The concept of marriage in the legal sense (ie civil unions) belongs to the state, and religious principles should have nothing to do with it.

 

[velcthulhu]

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.

But since different laws apply if you're married, this interpretation means religious discrimination on the part of the government. By your definition, an atheist cannot be married, which denies an entire group of people civil rights based on their beliefs.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

A marriage (if such a thing can be a tangible noun) belongs to the two people engaged in it. Gay or straight, black or white.

 

[Ancientgamer]

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.

But since different laws apply if you're married, this interpretation means religious discrimination on the part of the government. By your definition, an atheist cannot be married, which denies an entire group of people civil rights based on their beliefs.

Which is why I've stated several times in this thread that civil unions should have the same legal rights as marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that a marriage is a religious ceremony.

 

[ygetoff]

What? Marriage is just a word, rights to it are non-existent. That's like saying "who owns he rights to the word 'monkey'?". As for the OP's question, I have to go with State, since religion is important for marriage but the Church's opinions are severely outdated now. Especially when it comes to the question of gay marriage (I support gay marriage, by the way).

Yes, this. Giving the rights to something that everyone should have the right to (like marriage) to a group with very limited views on the subject would only cause trouble.

 

[Jerious1154]

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.

But since different laws apply if you're married, this interpretation means religious discrimination on the part of the government. By your definition, an atheist cannot be married, which denies an entire group of people civil rights based on their beliefs.

Which is why I've stated several times in this thread that civil unions should have the same legal rights as marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that a marriage is a religious ceremony.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, shouldn't that mean that the government has no right to say who can and who cannot be married?

 

[elemenetal150]

I think the state rights granted by civil unions should be expanded to be the same as marriage, so that they are separate, but equal. That seems like a compromise that would give everybody what they want.

It seems to me that they tried the whole separate but equal thing before and it turned out that the majority in power had a different idea of what equal means.

The main problem with just having it be civil unions instead of a marriage (even if the marriage is just a civil one) is it is still discriminatory. You can make laws that protect special interest people but to give rights to one group of people and deny another group of people the same rights..... It isn't the principles in which America is founded on.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

Nobody owns the term.

 

[YurdleTheTurtle]

Why can't there be a 3rd poll option for "No one"?

Like the others, I say it's just a word and no one owns it. It's a flipping word!

And if we absolutely must have someone own it, then I'll say whichever one is the most neutral. Perhaps the State dictionary?

 

[Pimppeter2]

The church. It is part of their religion. State should find a new word.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

Let clarify. I think the state rights granted by civil unions should be expanded to be the same as marriage, so that they are separate, but equal. That seems like a compromise that would give everybody what they want.

i won't respond i won't respond i won't res- fuck it,

it won't give everyone what they want

gay people want marriage

the word marriage

not just the legal terms

just giving gay people the legal terms will not satisfy the gay community

I will tell you right fucking now, if I find someone I can love, I do not want a namby-pamby civil union. I would want a marriage. Laws be damned.

separate-but-equal is inherently inequal, it is an impossibility. having a separate term for gay people is inequal, no matter if it has the same legal implications or not. the word MARRIAGE itself has a great cultural value, so any separate word that is officially used for other people is inherently inequal because society's attitudes towards it will be different.

you can go on about laws all you like, but it doesn't change attitudes, and civil unions will be seen as inferior because it isn't a marriage

no compromises

i hate threads like this, yet here I am.

if marriage is a religious ceremony, then WHY THE FUCK IS IT POSSIBLE TO MARRY WITHOUT INVOLVING RELIGION IN ANY WAY? I COULD BE MARRIED BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OR WHOEVER IT IT. I TYPED ALL that out with caps lock on, ain't gonna change it. pretend I AM LITERALLY SCREAMING AT MY MONITOR.

that's it fuck this thread, it'll only end badly