NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Therefore, the marriage of a gay couple is impossible, but the union of a gay couple is possible.

I have no problem with Gay people forming a union, but the real question is, can it really be called marriage, or should be called a union?

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

It's only considered defined that way by certain states now; unless the word is defined, legally, then, it can mean a union between any two people, man or woman, man and man, or dog and man.

So we're really second-class citizens, but there's, y'know, nothing really wrong with that?

edit: Now that I've finished plotting to kill my roommate, I'm going to admit that sounded unneccisarily hostile, but I won't retract the comment since it gets the point across if the word "that" was simultaneously equal to us, adding to clarity.

My personal opinion is that there's absolutely no real reason not to have gay marraiges, but I'd prefer large, vocal marches in the street instead of the current plans, which are sweet but won't hold up well if someone wants to repeal. A Malcolm X of Gay Rights'd be good if we could avoid the whole terrorism thing for a while. I'd settle for Dr. King happily, though I doubt (s)he'd actually get any attention.

Homosexuals have the same marriage privileges that all Americans do. You can marry someone as long as it is of the opposite sex.

Equality right there. Stop bitching about being oppressed and all that bullshit.

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

according to who? cause i'd actually say that marriage is defined as the culturally sanctioned social and economic union (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the culture in question) of two or more people (again, depending on the culture in question), typically involving status rights for children (though not always) and some level of sexual exclusiveness (but again not always).

or do only christians get married?

He was posting the dictionary definition of marriage. Most if not all dictionaries define marriage as between a man and woman.

Homosexuals have the same marriage privileges that all Americans do. You can marry someone as long as it is of the opposite sex.

Equality right there. Stop bitching about being oppressed and all that bullshit.

Actually, the issue here is that heterosexuals are free to marry the man or woman they love. Homosexuals and bisexuals, are not.

Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Therefore, the marriage of a gay couple is impossible, but the union of a gay couple is possible.

I have no problem with Gay people forming a union, but the real question is, can it really be called marriage, or should be called a union?

And here I was thinking it was us making up words, and not words making us up.

Homosexuals have the same marriage privileges that all Americans do. You can marry someone as long as it is of the opposite sex.

Equality right there. Stop bitching about being oppressed and all that bullshit.
We also all have the same right to live under a bridge and eat out of garbage bins, but while plenty of people live like that, by choice or by chance, lots of people don't really want to. In fact, I suspect that if that were, by law, your only choice you'd be pretty whiny & miserable about it.

He was posting the dictionary definition of marriage. Most if not all dictionaries define marriage as between a man and woman.

and in that case, most - if not all - dictionaries would not be using a cross-culturally viable definition. nearly all cultures that we know of have some institution that we would call marriage. that definition does not fit all of them. so we either then have to say that only christians can get married, or we have to fix our definition to reflect reality.

So we're really second-class citizens, but there's, y'know, nothing really wrong with that?

edit: Now that I've finished plotting to kill my roommate, I'm going to admit that sounded unneccisarily hostile, but I won't retract the comment since it gets the point across if the word "that" was simultaneously equal to us, adding to clarity.

My personal opinion is that there's absolutely no real reason not to have gay marraiges, but I'd prefer large, vocal marches in the street instead of the current plans, which are sweet but won't hold up well if someone wants to repeal. A Malcolm X of Gay Rights'd be good if we could avoid the whole terrorism thing for a while. I'd settle for Dr. King happily, though I doubt (s)he'd actually get any attention.

I was rather refering to techicalities rather whether or not they should bd married.

According to my dictionary, marriage is between a man and a woman.

I am not against gay marriage, rather for it, but rather i was asking if it should be called a union instead of marriage because of how we are so used to marriage being between a man and a woman.

You could call it a sodounionite for all I care, as long as the benefits are the same for everyone.

Personally, I think the best solution is to dissolve the idea of marriage completely to what it really should be: "the union an individual religious organization bestows upon its practioners". Keep marriage out of the legal systems, and just provide domestic partner benefits to anyone - hetero, homo, bi - who qualifies for them. Then let the churches define marriage however they want - the ones who say it's only between a man and a woman, well, that's their decision and I won't be frequenting that church.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

I know it lists the "between man and woman" bullshit first, but it also lists "union" as a definition of marriage. So why the hell call it something else just because you're gay?!?! It's a marriage, a union, a joining of two...it's all the same no matter what you call it.

Homosexuals have the same marriage privileges that all Americans do. You can marry someone as long as it is of the opposite sex.

Equality right there. Stop bitching about being oppressed and all that bullshit.

I will ask our expert on the rights and lifestyles of homosexuality here, what would be the detrimental effects of allowing homosexual marriage to his life, and the rest of the country?

Homosexuals have the same marriage privileges that all Americans do. You can marry someone as long as it is of the opposite sex.

Equality right there. Stop bitching about being oppressed and all that bullshit.


So why don't we go back a few decades and say that, when it comes to marriage, black people have the same rights as whites. They are free to marry whomever they want, as long as it is someone of the same race!
Why stop there, let's say that poor people can marry whomever they wish, as long as they are within the same social standing?

As said in another post, the equality is to be able to marry the person they love, gender should matter no more than race or social standing or creed!

My view on the whole issue is thus:
Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriages should be only granted by churches and then the churches could determine to whom they would grant marriages. No benifits should come with these marriages, they are simply religiously recognized unions.

What the government should do is grant civil unions. All privilidges and benifits currently given via marriage should be then granted to civil unions. Civil unions should be granted to any 2 individuals who wish to enter into them. "Married" couples, gay couples, platonic relationships (for example 2 elderly siblings who wish to have visitation rights, medical power of attournys etc, or any 2 people who wish to enter into a mutually benificial relationship).

This way, no one get's discriminated against, those opposed to gay marriage get to keep their marriage sacred. Everybody wins.