Poll: Do you support gay marriage?
- Thread starter Jaeke
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In times like this I like to turn to the oxford english dictionary.
1)the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage
-[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage
-(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.
So in the instance of gay marriage, it is a formal union between two people which is recognised by law and is thus marriage. The only reason it has been a man and a woman, is because you weren't allowed to be gay when they came up with the term.
And yes, I do agree with it, if people want to spend their lives together then why shouldn't the law recognise that?
1)the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage
-[mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage
-(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.
So in the instance of gay marriage, it is a formal union between two people which is recognised by law and is thus marriage. The only reason it has been a man and a woman, is because you weren't allowed to be gay when they came up with the term.
And yes, I do agree with it, if people want to spend their lives together then why shouldn't the law recognise that?
I don't see one single thing wrong with gays getting married, and I mean actually "married", like they get to use that word to describe it. I don't think marriage between a man and a woman is any more or less sacred than the marriage between two men or two women.
All fine and good but you have to remember that the meaning of words can and has changed over the centuries.Jaeke said:
Also why defend the term "marriage?" the word has been screwed over for a VERY long time, the wording "for as long as you both shall live" (at least I think that's how it goes) has been all but abandoned in this modern age of quicky divorces. Clinging to the "sanctity of marriage" when people have broken their vows in less than an hour screams of being hypocritical. Gay people should have the right to break solemn vows made at an altar like everyone else.
I'm against gay marrige but for equal rights. I believe marrige should be removed from law and replaced with civil unions, I think it would make a nice compromise that everyone could agree to.
Fun fact: The people I talk to most on Facebook are gay and two girls I intend to hang out with in the near future are lesbians who are in a civil union (or were but Amendment one passed).
Fun fact: The people I talk to most on Facebook are gay and two girls I intend to hang out with in the near future are lesbians who are in a civil union (or were but Amendment one passed).
While I am less comfortable than I ought to be with the concept of the physical side of homosexual relationships, I have nothing against extending all the same legal rights to such couples others enjoy. After all, being uncomfortable with the realities of such things is my personal failing and if some vindictive god has something against being fair to two people in love then I'd say it's time to pick a less petty deity.
This.. this just annoys me now. I mean, sure, be Christian, be any religion you want to be. But as soon as you're denying people, mainly people that you don't even know, from being happy because they are different from you and it's different from what you're comfortable with? That's discrimination and you are the worst kind of dick.
Have you're religious morals and ideals, but don't force them on others.
Oh, and writing " gay "marriage" " makes you a huge dick as well.
-rant over-
Have you're religious morals and ideals, but don't force them on others.
Oh, and writing " gay "marriage" " makes you a huge dick as well.
-rant over-
Yes, on the terms that Gay marriage is shortened to.....
Gmarriage.
I want that word to be real.
Gmarriage.
I want that word to be real.
Nonsense - it would be fun. Instead of two small and dull parties, they'll have one big one. Besides, as I said, they could go with only one stripper then - they'll just need to pay a bit for overtime but it wouldn't be double the price. And there would be just one cake for the stripper to jump out to - additional reduced costs (especially since if there are two strippers, the cake would need to be bigger). And if they have their bachelor party in Vegas, they can get married then and there, and the party goers will be the wedding guests. See how practical it is?Matt King said:
This means that homosexuals would have more money to spend to help the economy. Or something.
Well hell, look at people like Kim KarStupidian. Look at some of these celebrities:RatRace123 said:
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander: 2 days
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman: 6 Days
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries - 72 days
Mario Lopez and Ali Landry: 2 weeks
Kid Rock and Pam Anderson: 4 months
And those are just a few to name. :/
Not to mention couples that divorced and got remarried to the SAME person.
Marriage just isn't sacred anymore. IF ANY argument wants to be made against homosexuals marrying, stricter rules should be set for said establishment.
Your argument is fundamentally undermined by the fact that language is not a fixed thing. Words take on new meanings all the time. But, it should be noted, words rarely change their meaning entirely. They tend to maintain the kernel of an idea. For example, awesome in the most common context does not mean awe inspiring but it does imply someone thought something was really cool. But, to focus more on your very specific point, common usage of the word marriage indicate the kernel of the definition is the union of two compatible things. One could use the word marry (derived from marriage) in a context of "part a of a machine is married to part b".Jaeke said:
The root of the definition, that special part that is so very hard to alter with time, has nothing to do with specifying the types of things but rather their compatibility.
I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone else, yet I am as entitled as anyone else to stand up for what I believe in. And in this case I am standing up for my definition of marriage, NOT on how I view other people should be able to conduct their relationships. Others don't believe what I do, and as such shouldn't be held to the standards I believe in. Yet we have legal restrictions that we need to obey, and we are all equally allowed to pursue our beliefs and try and get laws changed.George Barrow said:
I agree that gay people should be able to pursue their right to have a relationship in whatever manner they care to, and as such should be able to have the equal rights/benefits as anyone else in a comparable position, and are as deserving of entering a familial unit. I am not affected by their relationship, and it is no less likely to better or worse than those of current marriages. What I am disagreeing with is a matter of language, why should the term marriage be extended past what it is currently, why shouldn't a new term arise and be adapted for this purpose? I am not judging here, I am not trying to seeking to make either side 'lesser', they should, under law be equal. But, while equal, I don't believe they are the same.
Yup 100% ive got no problems with gay marriage whatsoever its doing no harm to anyone and they should have the same rights as everyone else.
