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

[Nightflight51]

Both the church and the state can use it. However, just because the church doesn't want the state to give it out to a certain minority doesn't mean the state shouldn't keep handing out its own brand of marriage.
I don't want to get married in a church. I don't care if your God-corporation doesn't approve of my union with my significant other.

I want the benefits the state is giving out, tyvm.

 

[Del-Toro]

Every society and culture has had marriage, saying it belongs to Christianity is like saying all religion is from the middle east, incredibly ignorant and a sure way to ensure that you are stupid.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

i own it

Damn, so can I marry my gf?

The word, no one.
The act, legally the state but the church as a rather large say in it.

 

[esperandote]

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.

Even if gay comunity have civil unions most people aren't that literaly adecuate to say "bill and jim got together in civil union" most people are going to say "they got married" anyway. At least i would, im that lazy.

Its a collectively owned term. Someone owns it as much as I own the word ocean.

may i use it or should i stick to saying "sea"?

 

[MusicalFreedom]

Even if gay comunity have civil unions most people aren't that literaly adecuate to say "bill and jim got together in civil union" most people are going to say "they got married" anyway. At least i would, im that lazy.

people can dance around the issue all they like, fact is the gay couple had a civil union. what I'm getting at is that what people call it is only part of the issue. the other part is what the state recognises it as, and when it comes to things like official documents, it is labelled as a civil union.

 

[crypt-creature]

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.

Because the title has its benefits in society, especially in a job environment and amongst the government. Saying that a couple has entered into a 'civil union' could be a way for people to discriminate against gays and homosexuals, or to flat out target them by a group or people.

Besides, the word 'marriage' has come to mean a union between two people who love each other nowadays. Someone who doesn't believe in a god, theoretically by what you've said, shouldn't be married or accepted legally under the marriage license. Nor should a person who believes in a religion that doesn't recognize 'jesus, the holy ghost, and God' as their own be allowed to be married to someone who does. It's a conflict of religion, and would theoretically stop many people from being married because they have different beliefs than someone else. People don't usually ask about someones religious beliefs before they are to be wed to make sure it will be a 'holy union' in every sense of the term, that would be rude and it's really no ones business but the people being married. The same should be said for same sex marriages.
No one should own the word, or have power to decide who has the right to participate in the use of the word or the physical act of it.
Words evolve over the years to mean different things, marriage should be no exception. Allowing any one person or group of people to have sole power over a word and its benefits, when not everyone believes in that group or person, is callous.

EDIT: - What if a church official or judge does believe in same-sex marriage? Should they not be able to perform the right just because they have a different view of the same religious beliefs as their peers? If they do perform it, would the state not be able to recognize it? The church has no right to say who can and can't perform a marriage, or who can and can't be accepted under a marriage license.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard a purely secular argument against gay marriage?

 

[lizards]

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).

Fuck it, *I* own the rights to the word 'Monkey'. Every time you use it, you gotta pay me royalties, biatch. XD

o ya well Lexodus is my word...........

 

[BBQ Platypus]

The right to the word "marriage" belongs to me. I registered it as a trademark under my name yesterday. Anyone who has said the word "marriage" in this thread owes me five cents.

 

[Ancientgamer]

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,

Um, a union of Conservative Jews making a ruling is not "rare."

Also, from the article:

Reform Judaism, the largest branch of the faith in the United States, has ordained openly gay men and lesbians since 1990 and has allowed its rabbis to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies since 2000.

I'll try and find a source for that. Here's one (and another):

http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/judaism_and_same-sex_marriage_20090526/
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/03/Text-Of-The-Reform-Judaism-Gay-Marriage-Resolution.aspx

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.

How can something be both "a massive point of contention" AND there be "an accepted take" when it comes to the same issue? If something is 'contentious' it's the exact *opposite* of being 'accepted'.

You're presuming one activist movement has already won to form an argument for the other, when in reality it's still pretty fringe.

Fringe or not, it's still equally as *religious*. Whether or not it's an "activist movement" doesn't change the fact of whether it's *religious* or not.

You can't deny that someone is religious or not based on how many people agree or disagree with their theology.

I mean, according to that logic, Christianity wasn't a religion until long after Christ died--even Christ started with 11 male followers, some women, and Judas. 10 if you count the times St. Peter denied Christ before the cock crew in the morning.

First of all, the contention is with gays being religious not the other way around.

secondly, fine if the christen gay couple wants to find that one episcopal minister, good for them. But you make it sound like that's a view expressed by the church as whole, which it's not.

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?

That's exactly my point. The government has no place forcing the church to marry people. Or giving them a religious title.

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

Okay, if it gets to the point where the title is all they want. That's when I'll feel justified telling them to calm down and shut up. It's a religious title, if you force the church to give it to you. or get it from a government body, it means nothing. it's the same as a civil union.

And if to atheists get married by a minister, I'd say they're huge hypocrites, and the minister made a mistake. I'd hope that if they're smart, they'd just get a civil union (Under the presumption civil unions have the same legal rights. But if it's the churchs own choice, then fine, I just want the government out of it. If the church doesn't want to marry people, that's their right. And since marriage is (supposed) to be a religious ceremony, then I don't think you should be able to get married anywhere but a church or what have you as a religious function. Anything given out by the government should be termed a civil union because they don't have the authority to give out marriages in anything but name only.

I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard a purely secular argument against gay marriage?

Sure, how about everybody has the freedom to do what they want without interference? That includes the church, from a purely secular stand point

Sorry if I started rambling, it's getting late and my thoughts are all together right now.

 

[Blitzkrieg8]

the state i live in allows gay marriage guess the right one and you get a prize!

 

[Zand88]

Christians didn't invent marriage.

Get over yourselves.

 

[Turismo]

Marriage originated through religion, period. There was no term or concept of marriage until religion. The ceremony always had to do with a man and a woman joining together with a covenant from their respective god and/or gods. It is something that was either earned or needed a requirement to accomplish. From the tribal societies up to today's Muslim/Christian/Jewish traditions.

Fast forward to government intervention with their need to force their way into everything, and you have a meaning which barely resembles it's true intent. It's become a political buzz word and if you don't agree with modern definitions, you are criticized and called names, even bullied into shutting up.

In my opinion, marriage is a religious ordinance from the beginning that should not be regulated via the government, which unfortunately works both for and against the new people looking to claim the term marriage for their own.

 

[LewsTherin]

Webster, or perhaps the Queen, as it is her language.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard a purely secular argument against gay marriage?

Sure, how about everybody has the freedom to do what they want without interference? That includes the church, from a purely secular stand point

That sounds like an argument for gay marriage.
And the church has had their shot at doing what they want without interference. It didn't go well.

 

[0p3rati0n]

Chuck Norris owns the term

/thread