So a same sex couple could say their marriage was turned down because the church was gay. Thus gay rights takes on whole new meanings. Rainbows still resemble gay pride, but now explicitly deny samesex couples or homosexuals. Something tells me the floats this year in Bournemouth gay pride are going to be pretty uneventful.
I was going to try to weigh in on the subject before things got . . . silly, but it looks like I may have missed the boat. In any case I'm not sure I have much to add that hasn't been said, except maybe a slightly different perspective with some of the same results/opinions of others. I'll also add that I am an American, so this mostly relates to the U.S. I am a religious person, and in the church I belong to we believe that families are an association that will last forever, parents to children, husband to wife. I also believe that this eternal union is ordained of God, and that he sets the parameters of what unions are possible, and a union between two men or two women is not. That's all fine and good, but it's just my belief, and you can't do anything about it because I have the freedom to believe it. What I don't find acceptable is when people push their belief onto others. The beliefs of my church should not influence the state. Just because my religion says 'no gay marriage' it doesn't mean that there isn't the flying spaghetti monster religion that believes that there should only be gay marriage. But I also find it unacceptable that, in defense of freedom of belief, the state will force beliefs on individuals on the public. If I want to deny service to someone for any reason, I should be able to. It doesn't matter that my business is generally open to the public, that doesn't make me or my business public property. Forcing someone to do business for something they are morally opposed to is wrong. It's forcing your beliefs on them. A flower shop might deny doing flowers for the funeral of a mass murderer because of their personal convictions, or in another case might deny to do business because they are liberal and the deceased was a prominent conservative politician. This should be their right, and if they have moral convictions (whether religious or not) against doing business for a gay wedding, then that should be their right. Does it make it the right thing to do? No, but it should be in their rights to do it. Anyway, it makes the non-bigot florists more competitive. So what of gay marriage as recognized by the state? I personally think that the state has no right to discriminate against anyone. Marriage is a contract that gives certain rights to your spouse. That is, your spouse gets to make decisions on your behalf, being your proxy (of sorts). If gay couples want those rights then they should be able to have them, and the state should not be able to deny it. I'll fight for all people to have equal rights under the state. Now, to the specific topic of this thread. What is the definition of marriage? In the U.S. and in the English language in general, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. It's also necessitated a bride and a groom. But language changes, and the definition of words is often a moving target. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that marriage could encompass more than just man and woman, bride and groom. Of course, if all this is about gaining equal rights, I don't see why civil unions can't do the same thing. The gay rights movement would gain overnight traction if they just let go of the word "marriage." Most people support equal rights for all, but many people are just defending the definition of a word.
I have said this before and I will say it again. None of us are equal, we are all different, and this is what the progressive left and their supporters can't seem to compute. You and I are both male. Yet we are not equal. I am not equal to someone who can run a 100 meters in 10 seconds either, this means that him and I are unequal, we can't even compete on equal terms even though the rules may suggest we could, because we are not equal, right from the outset we are not equal, we never were. So according to the thinking of the progressive left. If we are to follow their line of thinking to its logical conclusion…he should wear heavier shoes, so that we become "equal". It is absurd, and so is it for gays to expect that the institution of marriage, which IS a union between a man and a woman, also should be extended to them. Worse yet when they invoke human rights and equality. There you have…equality. It cannot become anymore equal since we are different from the outset. I hope people can spot the difference, though I guess most cannot. But there it is. ..and yes, men and women aren't equal either, but I guess most of you knew that already. Just putting it out there before someone beats me to it.
No, it isn't. Some definitions of marriage prescribe a man and a woman, others don't. You are using the typical definition, but it's not the only one.
Trying to use a dictionary definition of marriage is an awfully prescriptive approach to subject of equal rights. As I'd rather not get into the etymology of Middle English words of Latin origin via Old French, suffice it to say that it's not a solid argument. As you go on to say, it's not a stretch for the word to mean simply the union of two people, regardless of their genders. Separate but equal was a poor approach when the subject was segregation, and it's a clumsy method of giving people equal rights today. I would argue that people supporting gay rights aren't hung up on the definition of the word. It was the religious right that claimed the definition as a means to enact legislation banning gay marriage. If everything outside of a church wedding is a 'civil union,' then that applies to heterosexual couples married in courthouses. That means Mr. and Mrs. Justice-of-the-Peace aren't 'married,' they're 'partners joined in civil union.' Edit Sorry, but you're creating a straw-man here. Nobody is claiming that all human beings are equal on a genetic and molecular level. This is about equal rights, not whether two people can run 100 meters in the same time.
I am using the definition our cultures have both used and agreed upon for (insert amount of years) "The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. " - This has been the definition and a major part of the fabric of our cultures for a very long time. You use another definition from another culture? Ok, you do that. As for "equal" rights I addressed those in my previous post, I suppose you would use another definition for that one too. Not a strawman at all, also, It shows where their mindset is at. Again, I addressed the question of equality in my previous post also. I'll post it again. There you have…equality. It cannot become anymore equal since we are different from the outset. I hope people can spot the difference, though I guess most cannot. But there it is. What you and others seem to be doing is to want to steal the term marriage, as an institution between a man and a woman, and redefine it to also include homosexual couples. Now that has nothing to do with equality as I see it. It has more to do with wanting to feel accepted and included, but that is not something that is driven by equality as such. Sorry but it isn't. --EDIT-- Perhaps you should start by defining rights before you attempt to define equality, supermonkey. It would make communication so much easier, I think. I did my part when I highlighted rights as well as equality, it is highlighted in green.
We are all unique... but nobody is special. That means that you can have your definition about what constitutes marriage, but that does not make it more valid than my definition or anyone else's --no matter how much you insists your definition IS the one, true belief. You can marry who you want, according to your definition, and so can anyone else, according to theirs. I'm not sure here the progressive left come into it, but you are what you are accusing them of being (which is a common theme in psychology. Projection: read all about it). Gay people are not wishing to interfere in your right to marry. You are wishing to interfere in theirs. You are the prescriptive party who wishes to impose your standards on everybody else. You are wanting to make every marriage equal, when every marriage is unique. So tell me, how does a gay couple marrying threaten your marriage and way of life?
It is not my definition, I did not come up with the definition. I am using our definition, that is to say, the definition we came up with, the institution of marriage that has been a major part of the very fabric of our cultures, and for a very long time. You don't have to like it Nexxo, it is what it is. Don't call it my definition please, because it isn't my definition. Try to have some intellectual honesty.
Why would the framework for gay couples need to be called something other than marriage? If it gives them the same rights then surely it's the same thing as what we already call marriage? Why have a different name for it? Is there something special about the word 'marriage' that means the definition is fixed for all time and can't be changed?
For a very long time, the definition of "wife" in our collective Western culture was something along the lines of "subservient member of the female gender. Housekeeper, child-bearer, home-maker. Must obey husband." Do you see how over the past couple of hundred years this definition has evolved into one slightly more palatable? Why can't words/institutions morph to become more inclusive or socially acceptable?
Wife is the name given to a woman who is married, just as husband is the name given to a man who is married, as for obligations they may change over time sure. Housekeeper, child-bearer, and home maker is still very much a reality by and large even today. There is nothing wrong or ugly with that. I'll be back to check on the thread later, I have more work to do.
