Gay marriage

[sarah and hicham 3]

I voted no. If it was legal than it would take so much longer to get our loved ones here. Then we would have to wait in line for immigration applications to be approved. Aproving the gays and the straights. What a mess that would be.

Why would it be a mess? Because we would all have equal rights? That's disgusting!

I hope you weren't serious with that you wrote.

Edited November 12, 2006 by sarah and hicham

[~Jess~ 0]

i dont care if they marry.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Yes, yes, yes! Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. And to bring their spouses to the US. (And I am against any non-marriage partner visas—which is one of the reasons I think gay couples should be allowed to marry.) (ETA: *IF* gay couples cannot marry, I am for non-marriage partner visas for them. However, I would prefer it many times over that they be allowed to marry and go through the same processes as heterosexual couples.)

I would be willing to accept as an alternative the law's being changed so that the government allowed only civil unions and all rights currently associated with marriage were granted on the basis of civil unions, and marriage ceremonies would not be legally recognized but could be performed (or not) by religious organizations.

I would be willing to accept this change because I think it would be easier for people to accept. Personally, my definition of marriage does not (and never has) included the gender of the people involved, since the time my mother first said "Marriage is when two people who love each other very much decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together." (And no, my mother is not a lesbian. She and my father have been married for 32 years.) So I have no problem whatsoever with "marriage" including people of the same sex. But I know some people can't get over the idea that marriage must be between a man and a woman, so I would be okay with taking "marriage" away from the government, letting religious organizations have it, and have the government base everything on "civil unions" instead.

~Bethany

(Damn proud to be from New Jersey)

Edited November 13, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[Yodrak 7]

cristy,

Chose "I don't know" when I couldn't find "I don't care" among the choices.

Yodrak

Just go go along with the thread

[Nessa 23]

Yes

[almaty 19]

yes

[Arazia 0]

I believe they should be allowed to marry or at the very least have civil unions. My uncles have been together for twenty years now. That's longer than a lot of married people. They're allowed to claim each other on health insurance in the state they live in, which helped a lot last year when my non-related uncle had heart trouble had had to have serious surgery. He hasn't been able to work since and it helps them cover the bills.

I love my uncles, regardless of their sexual practices. They are family.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Arazia

[no one 0]

I voted "yes but don't call it marriage". Only because I think churches/places of religious worship should be in charge of the marriage business, and they should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriages. I would be perfectly happy if my "marriage" was instead called a "civil union", doesn't make a difference to me. My marriage doesn't have religious meaning for me. If those who are religious want to protect the definition of marriage, then by all means, let it be protected. People should be free to choose religious communities that prohibit gay marriage if they want.

Why do you think religious leaders should "be in charge of the marriage business"? Do you believe that marriage is a "business"?

marriage is a religious term and that should be the end of it. there is no reason why only gay couples should be able to get a civil union though. i would like one! I am not religious and would even go so far to say I am an atheist. why should I have to get *married*?

i am curious if opposite-sex couples would be able to apply for civil union licenses in states that approve or would we be turned away because we are not same-sex?

How do you figure "marriage" to be a religious term?

From the OED:

[< Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French, French mariage (1135 in sense 1, c1165 in sense 3, 1588 in sense 5a, 1643 in sense 2, 1840 in sense 5b, but already in 1534 used to denote a card game) < marier MARRY v. + -age -AGE. The English word has evidently been apprehended from the outset as though a derivative of MARRY v., as suggested by the much earlier attestation in English in sense 2 than in French. Cf. Old Occitan maridatge (13th cent.), Italian maritaggio (13th cent.), Spanish maridaje (early 17th cent.); Portuguese has a different formation, maridança (15th cent.).

With senses 3 and 6 cf. also MARITAGE n.

In current usage, MARRIAGE n. and WEDDING n. are both applied to the marriage ceremony and attendant festivities (sense 2b below), though the present word is generally restricted to more formal registers (except in Scots and Indian English). Note, however, that WEDDING n. is not applied to the state of matrimony (sense 1), so that the two nouns are sometimes used contrastively, e.g.:

1992 D. MADDEN Remembering Light & Stone viii. 79 It was like taking a wedding at face value and confusing it with the marriage to come.

Compounds containing MARRIAGE n. in the sense ‘nuptials’ (e.g. marriage bell, day, dress, etc.) are still attested, though more rarely than corresponding compounds in WEDDING n. Cf. WED v., MARRY v., and note s.v.]

I. Simple uses.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.

The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

b. in marriage: in or into wedlock (now arch.). to give (also conjoin, join, take) in (also to, into) marriage: to give (join, etc.) as husband or wife. but marriage: unmarried (Sc. Obs.).

c. A vow or contract of marriage. Chiefly in to break (also keep) one's marriage. Obs.

d. A particular instance of matrimony between a husband and wife; a matrimonial alliance.

e. With modifying word, as group, communal, etc.: a system understood to exist in some cultures, religious groups, etc., by which each of the men in a small community is regarded as married to each of the women. Cf. plural marriage s.v. PLURAL a.

2. a. The action, or an act, of getting married; the procedure by which two people become husband and wife.

b. A wedding ceremony; wedding festivities. Now chiefly Sc. and S. Asian.

c. In phrases denoting the means or custom by which a spouse is acquired, as marriage by capture, marriage by exchange, marriage by purchase.

3. A dowry (in quot. 1465, that given by a father for his son). Cf. MARITAGE n. 2. Obs.

4. A person viewed as a prospective husband or wife; a (good or bad) match. Also: a spouse (rare). Obs.

5. fig. and in extended use. a. An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things.

b. Cards. In bezique, pinochle, and related games: the holding of a king and queen of the same suit in a hand, which scores points when declared. Cf. MARRY v. 11.

c. (An act of) industrial or commercial union; a merger.

d. An antique assembled from components differing in provenance, date, etc.; the assembling of such an object. Cf. MARRIED a. 2c.

6. Feudal Law. = MARITAGE n. 3. Obs. (hist. in later use).

[edsperfect 25]

Don't you post in the ME/NA forum? This should be a breeze!

(Just kidding with you...your post here made me giggle!)

You'd think! right?

Hummm. Now I am wondering. Should we start a post on should homosexuals get K1's?

Thanks for making me laugh this morning!

[mRx 16]

Yes

[Mary Lou 681]

yes

[Jenn! 918]

I voted "yes but don't call it marriage". Only because I think churches/places of religious worship should be in charge of the marriage business, and they should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriages. I would be perfectly happy if my "marriage" was instead called a "civil union", doesn't make a difference to me. My marriage doesn't have religious meaning for me. If those who are religious want to protect the definition of marriage, then by all means, let it be protected. People should be free to choose religious communities that prohibit gay marriage if they want.

Why do you think religious leaders should "be in charge of the marriage business"? Do you believe that marriage is a "business"?

If someone tells you to mind your own business do you respond, "But I don't run a business!"?

I'm talking about an affair or matter, not a commercial enterprise.

[no one 0]

I voted "yes but don't call it marriage". Only because I think churches/places of religious worship should be in charge of the marriage business, and they should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriages. I would be perfectly happy if my "marriage" was instead called a "civil union", doesn't make a difference to me. My marriage doesn't have religious meaning for me. If those who are religious want to protect the definition of marriage, then by all means, let it be protected. People should be free to choose religious communities that prohibit gay marriage if they want.

Why do you think religious leaders should "be in charge of the marriage business"? Do you believe that marriage is a "business"?

If someone tells you to mind your own business do you respond, "But I don't run a business!"?

I'm talking about an affair or matter, not a commercial enterprise.

Fair enough. I'm still interested in your response to my first question though.

[LaL 418]

marriage is a religious term and that should be the end of it. there is no reason why only gay couples should be able to get a civil union though. i would like one! I am not religious and would even go so far to say I am an atheist. why should I have to get *married*?

i am curious if opposite-sex couples would be able to apply for civil union licenses in states that approve or would we be turned away because we are not same-sex?

How do you figure "marriage" to be a religious term?

simple definition (while I apreciate the exhaustive definition you provided) the mutual relation of husband and wife

this to me is certainly not secular. so the question is, how did it get defined so specifically as man & woman? tell me how today why can't the definition be changed to accommodate man & man or woman & woman? to me it seems rediculously obvious that the only reason it is stayiing put is because it is deemed a sacred union by religions (which certainly do not ascribe homosexual relationships as valid and to go so far as to say sinful).

to me, it seems this is how it began, and how it continues. the TERM marriage is MARRIED to religion.

[no one 0]

simple definition (while I apreciate the exhaustive definition you provided) the mutual relation of husband and wife

this to me is certainly not secular. so the question is, how did it get defined so specifically as man & woman? tell me how today why can't the definition be changed to accommodate man & man or woman & woman? to me it seems rediculously obvious that the only reason it is stayiing put is because it is deemed a sacred union by religions (which certainly do not ascribe homosexual relationships as valid and to go so far as to say sinful).

to me, it seems this is how it began, and how it continues. the TERM marriage is MARRIED to religion.

I'm female, married to a man, and we are far from being "married to religion". I'm also far from being well-read in all the world religions, but this whole "union of man and woman" thing mainly stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which happens to be pretty popular in America but is not the belief of everyone else in the world.

As for how it was defined so specifically as man and woman... it wasn't. There are many definitions of "marriage" and that is just one of the many. But let's say it is THE definition... why? Because it is the norm, the most popular, the most common. Most of the world's population is heterosexual because of evolution... we needed to pass on our genes and continue our species. That's before artificial insemination and such came along, but hey, why do we still have wisdom teeth when our diet's changed over the years?

In any case, I'm saddened to witness so many gay and lesbian couples denied their right to marry all because of differing opinions on how to define an English word. I'm glad gay marriage is legal where I'm from