|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 14:57:33 GMT -5
So explain to my why heterosexuals can ''own'' the definition of a word then? My definition of a marriage is a bond between two people. I don't view it based on who or what they are, given it's two consenting adults. Why does it matter who is getting married and what they do in private? It's not my business. MY marriage is my business.
Chris, you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and you have the legal right to believe that and celebrate that through a legal marriage. But why should your belief in what a marriage is be forced on others who don't see it the same? How does two gay people marrying impact your personal, everyday life? More importantly, what relevance is it outside of the two people being wed? I am not being arguementive with you, just trying to prod you for answers as to why marriage should be defined for all the way you see it.
Please, be a little more specific besides the standard answer of ''because that's the way its always been'' kind of thing. At one time blacks weren't even counted as people, asbestos and lead paint were harmless, and cocaine was in everything. Things change and history isn't always a be-all answer to how things should be.
If God really had a problem with gays, there wouldn't be any. That seems simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 24, 2011 15:26:43 GMT -5
I think my ranting dust sound anti gay when it truly is the antithesis. To me, Marriage will always be between a Man and Woman, Marriage is only a word yet a powerfully divisive one nowadays. I don't think our rights to choose who we wish to be with or extend our legal benefits to should ever come from the government. I really don't think the term marriage can be reserved for any one group as a rule of proper vocabulary usage, it is a very private choice.
It does seem to matter to me when the US or State Government tries to re-define anything that they themselves never had the power to create, a Union of non property items called humans, Then affixing benefits, responsibilities or restrictions on that ill definable and non specific bond. That only goes to alienate others who are equally deserving yet still not included in the State approved list of current cohabitation acceptable practices.
If this was black and white, it would have happened long ago. Marriage is not a government responsibility, manipulating the word wont make it any more correct to govern over it. Two wrongs don't make a Right,
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 24, 2011 16:25:09 GMT -5
No, the arguement for gay marriage isn't about religion at all, its about a legal right and what is right. Yup, Religion can do as they like about defining what they think is marriage, what are the requirements for a couple seeking marriage in the church, etc. I guess one of my biggest beefs with the whole idea is that the government would have any say in it whatsoever, Gay or Hetero. They have no right via the Constitution to sit in judgement of relationships between consenting adults period. I agree. Although I could make something up, I suppose, I have never really heard a compelling argument for the government getting invovled in marriage between two consenting adults. i figure if God has gotta problem with any if it He will deal with it Himself at the appropriate place and time! I am just waiting for the day we can have a heterosexual day, week month and our own parade that doesn"t include rainbows>oh and dont forget that special weekend at Disneyworld Yupper! That's the real problem. Why is this crap always in our face? Marriage is between a man and a woman ...period.....and no one should mess with that concept. Gays....should find their own term and have laws changed so they are protected by the the laws a heterosexual couple has. That is what this is really all about and not "marriage". Well, you have at least ten thousand years of recorded history behind your opinion, Chris. But today things they are a changing. Closely held opinions about private matters are probably better left to the religious realm rather than the political realm. If this was black and white, it would have happened long ago. Best insight of the lot. Controversy by nature is not easy to settle. We will never agree, not all of us.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 16:47:49 GMT -5
Its not ''black and white'' because there are those who want to make it more than it should be. There are morality police who think their verision of society is what everyone's should be.
Marriage was an idea to promote families, to bring people together, create neighborhoods, etc. But over time, society and the composition of what is a ''family'' is no longer what it was generations ago. As everything else has evolved, or devolved depending on how you see it, so, too, should societal norms and customs. Gays used to have to hide who and what they were. They were outcast, labeled as deviants, abused, blacklisted. AIDS was called the ''gay cancer''. And yet these are all Americans, like you and me. They work, they pay taxes, they contribute to society like anybody else and they deserve the same rights and protections like everybody else.
Really, what are people afraid of? Are they afraid that if gay marriage is passed that suddenly zillions of people are going to go gay?
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jun 24, 2011 19:24:01 GMT -5
Gay marriage is not my thing but I do believe in, "to each his own, live and let live." ;D I am very good friends with two gay couples. Both have adopted children and have been together longer then some of my non-gay married friends who are now divorced. I do feel gay couples should have the same rights as any other married couple. If they are married they should be able to use the others medical coverage and any other benefits married couples are entitled to. Hopefully, that is what our government will now vote to give them.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 24, 2011 20:22:10 GMT -5
Hey I have lots of gay friends and understand their situation. I just don't believe in the marriage thingy.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 24, 2011 20:27:17 GMT -5
The worrisome thing about the death of traditions that go back to the dawn of mankind's history ... such as marriage ... is that society may not be entirely concious of what it is allowing to die. Not to trivialize the concern, but it's like coming across a wire in your basement that appears to have no useful purpose, so you pull it out of the wall and later find your driveway light no longer functons. Because you forcibly removed the wire, a fire started that evening and because the driveway light couldn't turn on the fire department was delayed in finding your house. The wire had become so enmeshed in the house and all of the building's parts and assemblies and systems that we lost track of the wire's function and the value it provided to us.
Marriage is so basic to our humanity and has survived for so long. For a piece of human culture that has that kind of history, it almost has to have played an important role in the functioning of our relationships and in the way we get along with one another, whether it is for exclusive access to females as in the animal kingdom and early tribes or the merging of families and property as the royals and the wealthy used it over the centuries. Or just the obvious solidification of a harmonious relationship between a man and a woman ... or a same sex couple if you like.
And we haven't discussed the topic of marriage as a committment. I'm sure that anyone here who is married can think of a time when because we made a committment to our partner ... a public and perhaps a religious vow in front of those who loved us and wanted the best for the two of us ... we thought twice about ending the arrangement ... and didn't.
Many of us took a husband or wife and aferward presented ourselves as a Couple to the outside world. After we bound to each other we began to relate to others as a couple. When we bought a house or sought credit we did so as a couple. We raised children as a couple and we went to school band recitals as a couple. And eventually we will approach old age as couples. We are friends for life, or so we hope. And if that didn't work out, we realize we did hope for it at one time. It is a very human trait to bind closely with another individual, usually of the opposite sex, and then extend out from there to the wider world.
I think it was Cicero ... it could have been Franklin ... who said that marriage is the first contract of any society. And by that I presume he meant that it not only comes early in adulthood but it is also a basic type or model of how we will live life among our fellows. And in fact in marriage we learn much about life and how to deal with other human beings.
I suppose a "civil union" between those of the opposite or the same sex could replace what we call marriage and have the same result as a marriage in the old sense of the word. I suppose it could, but the problem is we don't know for sure. We may be letting die an important component of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 21:10:01 GMT -5
By passing, and extending the right to marry, to our homosexual neighbors, we have now granted more people to partake in what you speak of, Dave. More people can now solidify their committment to their significant other.
Today is a good day for New York and New Yorkers.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 24, 2011 21:46:07 GMT -5
Almost nobody is saying that adults should not be able to assign benefits to whoever they choose. Employers now have the say over who is covered and who is not. Colgate covers traditional and non traditional relationships. more places are doing that.
Time mends more wounds than laws. Laws and civilizations will progress in their own time. The last 100 years has brought freedom and openness to many sectors of our society that were undervalued. All things will not be corrected in our lifetime, probably wont in 100.
Forced progression without serious introspection and reflection on the past may not turn out to be the be the panacea asked for. We do need to think long and hard about governments who classify their citizens and vote to approve or disapprove personal preferences.
I wonder if those of you that think this is not societal sculpting will be willing to grace, Common law Marriage, Polygamist and non parental Incest with the same terminology, Protections and laws. They believe their relationships to be just as sacred as "Normal" Hetero's and Gays, they undeniably an alternative just as the LGBTQH Communities are.
I will give it a break, in NY it looks like a done deal anyways. Its officially Bi-Partisan, the photo ops and backslapping will go on for weeks! That just makes me an outsider yet again, I can live with that. I think for the first time in my adult aware life I may abstain from voting this next time around...
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jun 24, 2011 22:04:13 GMT -5
WTG New York for passing the gay-marriage bill! ;D
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jun 25, 2011 7:39:40 GMT -5
domestic partner laws are alredy in place in most states i figure they just want the legal pain and expense of divorce
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 25, 2011 8:53:01 GMT -5
And now that is their right to take on the legal pain and expense of divorce if they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2011 9:21:20 GMT -5
"Equality is what this means! This is our right as people. It'll be our same relationship, we're the same people as when we met, except now it's proper in the eyes of the state, and I'll be able to look at people and say, 'this is my husband.' " JOHN HULS, outside the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village after the New York Legislature voted to approve same-sex marriage.
'this is my husband.' ....I really like that part of his statement. At the end of the day a gay married couple still think of them self as husband and wife, as should be. The nature of marriage for them has not changed. The only thing that is different is the outer shell of the two humans involved. This will bring a lot of money for New York State. Most gays are upper middle class.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 25, 2011 10:05:49 GMT -5
The gay community now has the right and the "privilege" to enjoy "thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" in their domestic relationships, just let everyone else.
It IS a victory over bias and discrimination, and it should be universally adopted by ALL States.
At one time I was in favor of civil unions as the resolution, but as I gave it more thought, THAT TOO was discriminatory and limiting. This has been a truly fair and unbiased decision and voters should be aware of those that voted against it when they go to the polls on election day. Seems that there are bigots and homophobes among your reps in Albany.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2011 10:28:32 GMT -5
The only problem is that it is only recognozed in 6 states. Not much room for movement.
|
|