I Don't, And Here's A Few Reasons Why.

Marriage can only be between two people of the opposite sex.

In the UK we currently have civil ceremonies for people of the same sex. This gives gay people the same legal rights as straight couples.

I have no problem at all with people's sexual orientation. Live and let live.

Why do gay couples want to be married....?

mikemcneil mikemcneil
51-55, M
10 Responses Jan 19, 2013

Wrong group, dearie. Looks like someone just wants to upset people. Please take it elsewhere.

"Dearie"?.......how gay does that sound?......in a humorous way, obviously.

Is dearie a gay thing? I was unaware

I am not your "dearie"....isn't that term gender based?

I was using it ironically, and no I don't think it has a gender.

Fair enough...ironically never comes out well in a written way I guess. I am not looking to upset people, just stating why I think the definition of marriage is not open for change by a minority.

Well I'm glad you're not trying to upset people, but... we're not really that small of a minority. Remember when blacks and whites couldn't be married? It seems ridiculous today, just as I believe this will soon. I'm just confused about you not being anti-gay but not wanting us to be married.

3 More Responses

It doesn't matter "why" they want to get married. It's a civil right and they should have it.

Let's see if your elected Supreme Court agrees with you.

We don't elect a Supreme Court.

So you are not in America then?

I am in America. We don't elect our Supreme Court

It is selected by the government you elect. Is that clear enough?

2 More Responses

My final comment in this thread. MikeMcNeil, you slip and you slide and you distort and come up with faux-logic answers and questions to everything that comes your way. People reading this post and thread know that you aren't for equal rights for gays. Your poorly formed arguments do little to mask the emotional bias you have based in prejudice against gays. End of story.

Thank you and goodnight. Why is it that people who insist on having the last word are usually wrong. I have no prejudice against gays, I believe in equality for all. That does not mean that a long held concept (ie marriage) can be changed to suit a set of people it was never intended for.

Typical gay outrage.....your last paragraph says so much about your inner goodness.

Good luck with your hate campaign and goodbye.

This group is about gay marriage...nothing else. I don't agree with it. Get over it.

No. This group is about supporting gay marriage. Your wrong, and have been proven wrong through science, so get over it.

What scientific proof do you mean?

If it is genetic how does it pass on to the next generation?

I question if gay marriage constitutes changing the institution of marriage. That implies that marriage was originally formed through based of christian values (it wasn't, marriage pre dates monotheism.) For over a thousand years marriage was used essentially as a social climbing tool, to solidify alliances and essentially to 'sell' women. Is it for better or worse that we have ditched that notion? To say that we would be changing the concept of marriage to suit one group of people is silly as well, as we did that already so women could actually chose who they marry. The idea of marriage evolves with the culture of the times. It was never defined in the constitution (until some states recently put into that ) that marriage was specifically between a man and a woman. And since we are a non secular state, and marriage is a non secular union.. it all seems perfectly logical. What you are arguing here is simply your personal interpretation of what is marriage, but not a practical legal definition.

Interesting that you think marriage was at one time used to "sell" women. I don't and never have considered forced marriages to be legitimate. Marriage for me has never been recognised as between anthyone other than a man and a woman, and I don;t think the constitution has any definition purely because it was accepted as just that at the time. I disagree with your lack of a "practical legal definition". What is impractical about it?

Well 'practical legal' in the sense that your personal definition does not apply to what we have, an actual definition. It's only impractical because it's subjective, not non objective. Lol but can an opinion really be impractical? They're just opinions, and they rarely change.

But as far as saying you don't consider 'forced' (arranged sounds more flattering) marriages valid, again clouds the actual definition of marriage for its context with your personal opinion. Simply because you don't approve doesn't make the situation less of a reality. 1000 years ago the vast majority believed why let a woman chose who she married, they were too stupid and often uneducated to make intelligent decisions after all, right? Or their personal decisions may not be ones that were advantageous to the family or social constraints. Obviously the system was bucked and had to change eventually. Now tell me besides anatomy, what's the difference between letting a woman chose who she marries, and letting a man chose who he marries? But who are we to afford women these basic human rights and deny them to gays and lesbians? Are they no less human than you or me, despite their sexual orientation? To me it is just as silly as segregated drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Forced submission of one group of people because of an anomaly does no favors to make any 'majority' look good.

I wouldn't class marriage as a basic human right. I support freedom of choice for everyone. Racism is not a relevant argument here, I don;t think. Mariage is not a matter of a man's or a woman's choice. It is the choice of the man or woman together. I am not sure what anomaly you are referring to? I believe in equal rights especially legal ones for couples of any sexuality, but I don't see the point in changing the definition of a word for a minority viewpoint. Would you allow brothers and sisters to marry?

8 More Responses

Isn't it obvious that it reduces the tax burden when filing jointly as a married couple (at least in the U.S.) as well as many other possible burdens in life? It's like asking why would non-gay couples want to get married.

It might mean that in the US but it doesn't make any diference to taxes in the U.K. Getting married purely to save money on taxes sounds very sad to me.

Not sure sad but as real as those who marry to stay in the country legally. Dontcha think your question is even slightly ridiculous?

Why is it ridiculous?

If "civil ceremonies" give the same rights to gay couples as married couples, then good for the UK. In the US, I don't recall civil ceremonies as an option for gay people so normally people say "get married", "marriage", etc. Gay marriages are legal in only 9 states, 31 states have constitutional amendments banning them, and 6 states have laws banning them. When a question like that is asked to someone who believes that gay couples are just like another couple and should be able to get married legally or take part in civil ceremonies, it does seem a little ridiculous.

Why do you believe gay couples are just like any other couple? That seems ridiculous to me. There is obviously a big difference, isn't there?

No, I don't thin so. Gay couples get married, too. Whatever couples do in the bedroom, I really don't want to know whether gay or not gay. The only real difference I can think of is that they can't produce offspring naturally but then, again some non-gay couples have issues with that as well... so no, don't see a real difference between both types of couples.

3 More Responses

My point of view is this: Your idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a religious argument.

Therefore you are trying to force your religious beliefs on others who do not believe as you do.

So then, when Christians start forcing others to abide by their religious beliefs in countries that claim to support freedom of and from religion, what's the difference between Christianity and Sharia law?

So you presumably would like a marriage completely free of religion? Does that mean you are trying to force your non-religious lack of belief onto other people?

Firstly, I'm not non-religious.

Secondly, all laws in countries that celebrate freedom of religion must be, by definition, free from religious influence.

Let's put it this way, as a Christian, how would you feel if the state put into effect a law that forces your wife to dance naked in the town square under the full moon, in order to maintain your matrimony, to be in compliance with some Pagan belief structures? Or to have her vagina sewn shut on the wedding night, so as to be in compliance with some interpretations of Islam?

The right to freedom of religion is also the right to be free FROM other people's religions.

Ludicrous choice of example to back up your argument. I live in the UK. Laws made here apply to all citizens of the UK. We don't all live in America. Religious freedom does not include the right to disobey the laws of the land, does it?

It's still law based on Christian belief structures in a country that professes to provide Freedom of Religion rights.

But that's ok, you UK Christians are about to find out exactly how it feels to have a bunch of zealots make their crazy belief structure legal; Sharia law is coming your way!

Disobeying the law isn't a right, it's a responsibility. When the law of the land begins to tread on basic human rights, it's every citizen's responsibility to refuse to recognize those laws. Without that responsibility, things like your Magna Carta would never have existed and we would all still be living in feudal oligarchies.

The law preventing homosexuals from marrying is based on the law of a 4000 year old desert dwelling nomad tribe, who founded a society that went on to commit the largest genocides this planet has ever seen based on and encouraged by those self-same 4000 year old laws. If ever there was a reason to abolish laws based on religions, those based on Christianity would be the best places to start.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus was great. Jesus' teachings were great. But even Jesus wanted religion out of politics.

This is just insane ranting. How exactly will Sharia law take over in the UK? I don't live in a fascist dictatorship, and laws don't just appear on the statute books overnight. Explain yourself please.

It's been all over the news. The Muslim population in the UK is rising very rapidly, and with that population is an increasing number of UK citizens who are pushing to make Sharia the law of the land.

There's even a district in England that has been enforcing Sharia despite it not being legalized yet.

Although I find it interesting that you're referring to facts as insane, and education as rambling.

I think this kind of thing is why she blocked you, Mike.

Which district? I live in the UK amongst a large Muslim community. Don't be so vague.

I think this kind of thing is why she blocked you, Mike.

??....how very random.

It's not random when you factor in critical thinking.

Sadly I don't remember the name of the district, and I really don't feel like looking it up. It's your country, you really should care enough to be informed. It's not my country, aside from proving to someone I don't know that I'm right I have no stake in it.

Especially not when the person in question already personally insulted me over a friendly discussion.

You need to back up your opinions, otherwise they are just anecdotal.

lol No I don't. That's why they are 'opinions'.

As for the facts I mentioned, I don't need to back them up either. Those are all commonly known facts of world history. You asking me to back them up is an exercise in dodging the point and only serves to have me jump through arbitrary hoops. It's like asking me to back up that Britain once ruled India.

8 More Responses

Someone is trollin'.


People who start **** on the internet just to cause trouble, fighting, and negativity for the sake of their own amusement. Hence why you joined a group supporting something you're against. Troll.

You have to join the group automatically to post a story. Take that up with EP, idiot! Am I still a member? Your comments on here are ridiculous, much like most trolls. Ididn't start this group, did I? But do I have the right to comment? Of course!

Umm no it doesn't sir. Civil unions don't give same sex couples the same rights that they would have with marriage. I'm curious as to why you joined this group for people who support same-sex marriage, if you in fact do not support it at all? Marriage was not made by "god" it was made so that men could own their wives and so that interracial couples could not marry. Also to make sure women were virgins when they wed. That's why people have tests when they get married. Why do straight couples want to be married?

Maybe same sex couples don't have the same rights in America. That says a lot about America. I didn't say marriage was made by God. I did say that marriage by definition, not by opinion, has to include God. I have no problem with any two humans hooking up and living together. I do have a problem with gay couples trying to use a term that is not relevant to them.

Ps where in the free world are brides subjected to a virginity test legally?

They were in the past, sir. Another reason why women take their husband's last names, was so that they were owned by the husband and his family. Her possessions, her children and anything she owned. No, marriage by definition does not include god. You see, there are many religions that don't involve god in a marriage. What you want in marriage, is an opinion, not a fact. I have a problem with straight narrow minded bigots who think they are the only ones who deserve rights. Sorry hun, move to Islam if you don't like it. They have tons of gays being persecuted and women being beaten there, if that's the kind of hate you prefer.

Name any religion that doesn't involve God in a marriage...??? That is possibly the most silly comment posted on this story! Move to Islam?....is that a country now? Typical idiotic American can't see past their pathetic countrys view of the world. I pray for you.

1 More Response

So where in the Bible does it state that marriage is to be between a man and a woman? Can you please quote chapter and verse? Additionally, why does marriage require the involvement of a god (or gods)? Marriage was a civil contract between two people that existed long before any of the current religions were around.

Being from the United Kingdom, you are allowed to have your own laws and customs. In the United States, we have our Constitution that defines the framework of our laws and legal system. We have the fourteenth amendment, defining equality for all citizens of our country. We also have legal precedent set forth by our Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education that invalidates the idea of "separate but equal" as not being so. Finally, we have legal precedent in Loving v. Virginia that states that marriage is a basic civil right.

In the United States, there is an option to get married that can be performed by a Justice of the Peace at the local courthouse. Religion does not need to be involved. The United Kingdom has the Church of England, but the United States has no primary church and has freedom of religion, meaning anyone is free to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). The last thing to remember is that the rights of one person END where the rights of another person BEGIN. Your freedom to practice your religious beliefs ends where my freedom to choose my own religious path (or lack thereof) starts.

The United States of America may not have a primary church but it does profess to be a country who recognises God, ie a Christian country. Can a Justice of the Peace marry two men or two women?

Technically yes since no religion is involved

But surely the state would need to approve that as the Justice of the Peace is employed directly by the elected government?

The debate right now in many states is whether or not to allow marriage between two men or two women. Those states that have already allowed it do have a Justice of the Peace available to officiate a marriage between two men or two women, yes. Any further state where it is recognized will have a Justice of the Peace available to officiate those weddings as well.

From there, while a majority of the population in the United States is Christian, we have freedom of religion which prevents one person (or group of people) from imposing their religious beliefs upon another. The government here is not allowed to make any law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This requirement makes it such that being Christian in majority does not allow that majority to overwhelm the individual religious beliefs of an individual.

How does it work that different states are allowed to have different rules? That is completely unfair.

Hence the debate. The thing to remember is that the country here is an amalgamation of states. The powers not directly construed to the federal government are reserved for the individual states. That is not to say most states do not have similar laws, and at the same time each state must recognize the laws of the others. The arguments now are in front of the Supreme Court over here, and once that decision is handed down, it will likely override any individual state law (as no state can enact a law that is against the federal Constitution).

As for things being unfair, I consider it completely unfair that two men or two women cannot marry. Before you go much further into bashing on United States laws and legal hierarchy, I would strongly suggest you look to understand the system and process we have here is different from the United Kingdom. We can hope to change things here in our country, but changing another country is a huge issue. A simple item to review, look at Saudi Arabia; a co-worker of mine was denied a visit over there for business because he was Jewish. Those are the laws of that country, not ours.

I see Obama has promised to make some moves on the same sex issue. I am not bashing your legal state of affairs, but it does seem ridiculous a state can pass a law without getting that same law agreed by the federal government first. It puts a line under the conept of the United States....doesn't it?

Umm, no, it does not. Our country is the "United States of America", not America, or some other title that only describes us as only one item. We are a group of states that has united together to form a single country. While each state has agreed to follow the federal Constitution and respect the laws of each other, there is no requirement that each state relinquish all control to the federal government.

Honestly, I think it underscores the concept of how this country is a united group of states quite nicely.

Last, you have yet to reply to my statement that marriage was a civil contract long before religion entered the picture, so there is no need for a god (or gods) to be involved in the matter. Marriage, by definition, does not have to include a god (or gods) as it did not when it began, it has just been co-opted by religion much the same that many pagan holidays have been. Please, quote me chapter and verse of the Bible where it states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Ephesians 5 23-32. Google it why don't you?

And you in turn quote me the biblical reference making it clear same sex marriage is acceptable in God's eyes. Good hunting!

Ps Paganism is a religion, isn't it?. It certainly has rules and Gods.....

OK, you read that passage as declaring that marriages must be between a man and a woman, yet my interpretation is much different. I read it as saying that one should love their spouse as they care for themselves; just as you would not hurt your own body or mistreat your own flesh you should hold your significant other in the same regard.

As for paganism, that point went sailing right over your head. I stated marriage was a civil contract first before religion of any sort was involved (especially Christianity). From there, I stated that marriage as a religious contract has been co-opted by religion. As evidence to show that Christian religions have co-opted things for their own use, I submitted that many pagan holidays have been taken over (look at Christmas and many of the traditions there).

Not to mention the fact that many pagan religions do allow same-sex marriage to occur (Wicca is an example), so if a religion allows it, should it not be legal according to your arguments?

If a religion allows it, why not get married in that religion if you are gay?
My point, as it has been from the moment I posted my story, is that gay people are trying to co-opt religions to obtain equality of legal status for their relationship. If same sex couples truly believe Christian religions are for them, how do they explain the total lack of recognition they get? Marriage is marriage......not gay marriage. Why is that so hard to understand. Didn't notice your biblical reference to support your view. Funny that!

Where do you get gays are trying to co-opt religion for their marriage? I have seen zero arguments for this. They are trying to get the same legal status as any other married couple, not the same religious status. You said it yourself, they want equality of legal status for their relationship, not equality of religious status.

Your view seems to be that Christian marriage is the only type of marriage there is. Is that what your thought is?

How can their be different types of marriage. What does gay marriage mean? Isn't that divisive? That is the name of this group. It seems to me gay people want their own marriage ceremony, not equality. In the UK they have legal equality, but still want a gay marriage ceremony just for gay people too. I don't support that. Gays appear to be wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Well, here in the United States they are simply looking for equal marriage in the eyes of the law. There are already churches here that allow gays and could care less if they were married, but in the eyes of the government it is a different matter. That is the issue here, the UK may be different where they want the government sanctioned church to recognize their marriage as well. After all, if the government says, "You're legally the same, but you can't have this aspect of it," doesn't that mean they're different and not equal? It sounds like the people who oppose gay marriage are trying to have their cake and eat it by just offering civil unions.

Here, since there is no government sanctioned religion, they simply want equality in the eyes of the government.

About 4 or 5 years ago here in the UK the government introduced civil ceremonies, to give everyone (not just same sex couples) the right to have a civil partner and share exactly the same rights as a married man and woman. However it looks like that wasn't enough for particularly the same sex couples, who are now demanding "gay marriage" . I can see no difference at all, other than gay people are now demanding to call their civil relationships "marriage".
I don't see that as equality, more a step beyond.
In the USA I did some reading up, and it is obvious that equal rights are not granted to gay citizens across all states. I have sympathy for them. It seems as though the federal goverment is dragging it's feet on not bringing everyone into line.

I've pointed out and had you fail to respond to one point here: if civil unions and marriage are different from each other, how are they equal? If there is a church that is government sanctioned and sponsored (i.e. the Church of England) that provides marriage ceremonies only to straight couples, then the government has not provided equal treatment, have they? After all, tax money can be spent supporting marriages between a man and a woman, but not two men or two women.

So, did I come up with something that you have no answer to? Are you for equality? Or is this something that really is 'different but the same'?

Sorry I only just noticed your question. The Church of England is not government sanctioned. The Church of England was created by Henry VIII. It was not created by the government. In the UK the Civil Ceremony gives exactly the same rights to same sex couples as marriage gives to straight couples. Maybe you could explain why this is not enough?

If there is no difference in the rights that government offers between the two, is there even a reason to call them different names? The only reason I can see is to give in to those who feel that their religious viewpoint (which considers it wrong) a way to differentiate it and feel good about it. If there is any religious group that considers it 'OK', then their viewpoint has been stepped on and obviously the government is willing to accommodate one religious viewpoint and ignore others. Therefore, there must be a religion that is government sanctioned.

You ask me why having a 'separate but equal' status is not enough, but at the same time I want to ask you why you feel it is appropriate to force your religious belief upon another? What is the difference what it is called if it is the same thing?

How I am suggesting "seperate but equal"? The government has to allow religious freedom, that's why it doesn't sanction any particular religion. I am not forcing my religious belief upon another, I am defending my beliefs against attack, surely.

If I misunderstood, I apologize. However, does the government define it to be 'marriage' if between a man and a woman, and a 'civil union' if otherwise? Or are they both defined as 'civil union'?

Yes, that's about it. Marriage of any description is a husband and wife, and the civil ceremony is between same sex couples. The civil ceremony was introduced by the government to give same sex couples the legal rights that different sex couples have. A far as I remember it was to get rid of inequalities referring to death pyouts and pension schemes and so on.

So the government HAS given the nod to one religious viewpoint over others by using different terms to differentiate the two. Because if they were not, any religion that would allow the marriage of same sex couples has been told their view is not as valid as religions that will not.

Do you continue to support this view? Because it does not fit the definition of religious freedom, and gives civil unions a "separate but equal" status with marriage.

Gay people aren't straight people, are they? Why do they want to impose themselves on a religious ceremony? So they want to be equal, but also seperate. Can boys play for a girl's sporting team....no. Does that mean gender discrimination is taking place? Your arguments aren't comparing like with like.Any religion that would allow the marriage of same sex couples is free to do so. Would you like to state which ones you mean? Gay people wanted the same rights in the UK, and they have them. But now they want more than equality, they want to change the meaning of marriage. How is that religious freedom? Rules exist for a reason.

You've just fallen back into your same rhetoric. If you have nothing against them, then why separate anybody into "gay" or "straight"? I was arguing legal definitions and how the government is taking one religious view over another. After all, religious freedom is not just being free to have your religious view, but free from being forced to follow another person's religious view. Marriage has been defined as a civil contract between two consenting people for longer than most religions have been around. Can you please tell me how ensuring it is the original meaning compared to the religious viewpoint changes it's meaning?

Here is the simple fact of the matter--if the government has EXACTLY the same definition of legal rights construed by a 'civil union' as a 'marriage', why do there need to be separate terms for the two? If there are religions that allow the marriage of same sex couples, you'll allow it, but you still won't let it be called a 'marriage'? It has to be a 'civil union'?

What happens now if a straight couple gets 'married' only through the government and not in a religious ceremony? This is a 'marriage'? Because it hasn't followed any religious views, only civil. So is it only a 'civil union'?

Do you want one religion to have control over government over any other to where they get to define legal terms?

"Marriage has been defined as a civil contract between two consenting people for longer than most religions have been around." Can you provide some proof to back that statement up?

The government can't change the concept of a marriage anymore than you or I can . It is not a political act. In the UK people don't have to be married in a Church. They can be married in any place that has the right to conduct a marriage ceremony. You are wanting to re-define marriage to include same sex couples. The government has no right to do that, and no powers either. I suspect you come from the U.S. of A where same sex couples are not treated equally, and would no doubt love to take part in a civil union which would give them equal rights to a traditional husband/wife marriage. Come back to me when your country is living in the modern world.

There are plenty of anthropology books available that describe relationships in ancient societies. Even a basic course in anthropology tends to cover this.

The concept of marriage is not a religious one--it is two people making a commitment to each other, I believe we agree on this one. This is why a straight couple can be 'married' without requiring religion. I am trying to figure out what your different definition of "marriage" is, and also WHY you hold that definition. Why does marriage have to be between a male and a female? If you have already made something that is exactly the same, why do you require it to be named different?

I am from the United States, correct, and I am trying to help bring our country forward on this subject. In the area in which I live, same-sex marriage is being pushed for on many fronts and I am among those who feel it is ridiculous that others want to deny marriage to anyone.

We already went through a huge period of pain and strife about fifty years ago where some regions of our country had 'separate but equal' facilities and status based on the color of their skin. Why do you want to give same-sex couples equal rights as straight couples but give it a separate name? All that does is create divisions between people in a country.

Are you saying that the relationship between same sex couples is the same as that between a man and a woman?

I consider it to be so, yes. If you do not, can you elaborate as to why?

Can same sex marriages produce children?

Can marriages between sterile straight couples produce children?

That's deflecting the point.....by avoiding to answer. Is gayness down to preference or the laws of nature?

Yes, it is deflecting the question, but my response was meant to show how the argument using procreation is silly. After all, if marriage is only about procreation, why do we allow infertile couples to marry? Why do we not force the dissolution of marriages that fail to result in procreation?

As for whether or not homosexuality is genetic in basis or simply a personal choice, scientific evidence is mounting showing a genetic basis.

If as you consider evidence shows a genetic basis.....wouldn't that be the ultimate dead end? I didn't say marriage was about procreation, did I? Iasked why gay couples would want to emulate straight couples. It's obviously not about equal rights.

The point you are missing is that it IS about equality. If you give the two exactly the same status and rights, then why do you call them something different? There is only one reason I have ever seen this done in human history--to keep them unequal. The word "emulate" to describe couples is really a poor one. My wife and I do not try to 'emulate' the way some straight couples are, because not all relationships are solid and happy. On the other hand, we have seen same-sex relationships with good points that we want to 'emulate'.

Emulate was the word I decided to use. It means exactly the way same sex couples want to be seen as straight sex couples. It has nothing to do with whether or not marriage is good or bad. How can a same sex couple have exactly the same status as a straight sex couple?.....they are not the same. Would you have the same rights for a bisexual couple?

Yes, the status should be the same, because otherwise you are telling these people that they are second class-citizens. Is that what you want to tell same-sex couples? That they are a second class of people?

I'll put forward some simple history from the United States. Fifty years ago, some areas had separate facilities and areas for people who were black. The facilities and areas were exactly the same, and black people had the same rights as everyone else. Does it honestly seem like it is equality to be completely separated from the 'first-class' citizens because of skin color? The same argument applies here.

I am not sure that is relevant. The blacks and whites thing I mean. Racism was a problem then in America, and it still is now. The problem I have about marriage is the re-definition of the word to suit gays and lesbians. I don't feel there is a need to re-define it. Allowing same sex couples to say they are married doesn't give them any more rights in the UK. I can see that it does in America.

It is very relevant. Racism and bigotry go hand-in-hand. By not giving the same word, you've automatically put that group into a 'second-class' citizen status. That is NOT equality.

On top of this, you've defined the word to have the religious connotations, in which case the government should not call any union of two people by the religious term or be seen as accepting one religious view over another. The word has been redefined from its original meaning to give the religious connotation, it is time for it to have the original meaning.

In the end, does allowing same-sex couples to use the same term as others diminish the meaning of the word?

It doesn't diminish the meaning, but it does change the meaning. Why should the meaning be changed by a minority of the population. Doesn't that affect the rights of the majority? I am not suggesting gay people are second class. The religious connotation is implicit, not an add on. Equality means having equal rights, and I agree gay people should have equal rights. I don't believe equal rights means you can change the rules to suit your own way of life at the expense of others, who have equally valid rights.

No, the religious connotation is not implicit in the definition of marriage. You have said it is, and you are mistaken. If the religious connotation was implicit how would it be that non-religious couples could be married by the government without being forced into a religious ceremony? If you make it so, you are forcing your religion onto another.

I'm about to give up here, your religious bigotry obviously cannot see beyond your own face.

You are trying to cloud what I said.....the religious connotation to marriage is implicit in the word "marriage". I notice you have failed to answer several of my recent questions....perhaps that is why you are leaving the debate. I am not a religious bigot...what makes you say that I am?

You are the one who has put the religious connotation on the word "marriage", I see no implicit religious basis behind it. I have seen absolutely NOTHING to show me that there is any implicit religious connotation behind the word (not to mention I showed early on that 'marriage' existed before religions co-opted it). Go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up the definition of the word. While religion is mentioned in there, it is not stated as being the only way for this to happen. Also, I fail to see what questions I have not answered, where I have seen plenty of mine you have failed to answer.

You keep running back to religion on this, yet you profess that religious freedom must be allowed. As long as there is one religious belief system somewhere that allows same-sex couples to be 'married', then the basic tenet of religious freedom implies it must be recognized and same-sex couples afforded the same terminology as straight. This is where the religious bigotry comes in--you want to force your belief of the meaning of the word together with the belief of your religious view on others.

Calm down......that would mean voodoo priests raising the dead and slitting chicken's throats must be recognized too? I have no desire to force my beliefs on anyone in this world, but I resist any attempt by ignorant minorities to redefine my words for their own twisted ends. You keep using religion to back up your argument, but quote no religion yourself. Which religion allows same sex marriage?

The practice of voodoo as a religion must be recognized as well, yes. That is the definition of religious freedom. As long as it does not violate the rights of another, it is perfectly legal.

There are several Episcopalian religious groups here in the United States that allow same-sex marriage.

The problem I see is where you say, "I resist any attempt by ignorant minorities to redefine my words for their own twisted ends." What if the problem is you are being ignorant with your definition of the word?

Your belief that I am ignorant about the definition of marriage is purely your opinion. I see no evidence from you that marriage can be between anything other than two opposite sex partners. Can you provide non-anecdotal evidence of that?

mar·riage [mar-ij]
1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities

This is the dictionary.com definition. I can pull it up in a regular dictionary and find it that way as well. Yet the way I choose to define the word is purely my opinion?

The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, defining marriage for the first time solely as a union between a man and a woman for all federal purposes, and allowing states to refuse to recognize such marriages created in other states.[125] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2005), holding that prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships violated the Constitution, was overturned on appeal by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." The Washington Supreme Court, also in 2006, concluded that encouraging procreation within the framework of marriage can be seen as a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to between opposite-sex couples.[126]

And these decisions are under review by the United States Supreme Court to determine whether or not they are in violation of the Constitution. Once the decision is handed down from that body, as a nation we are bound to follow it.

b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

Similar is not the same.....do you understand that? Why does the dictionary use the term gay marriage, if it means exactly the same?

Wow, just...wow. The definition of the word marriage includes same sex couples yet you still hold on to the attitude that it doesn't. Kind of hard to really argue from there.

Shall we go into the definition of the word 'similar' now?

similar (ˈsɪmɪlə)

— adj
1. showing resemblance in qualities, characteristics, or appearance; alike but not identical

Based on this definition and a) and b) from the definition of the word 'marriage', it can be shown that the difference between a) and b) is that a) has it as 'a man and a woman', while b) has it as 'a same-sex couple'. Obviously not identical, yes, but similar enough to fall under the definition of the word 'marriage'.

"alike, but not identical". In your eyes that would fall under "equal, but seperate"....I guess?. The dictionary definition you chose and quoted clearly makes a distinction between "marriage" and "gay marriage". I can't be bothered to argue using semantics, to be honest. You see what you see in that definition, and I see it differently.

OK, not exactly identical, but it still falls under the definition of marriage. It is still there. That's what I can't get. You are arguing against it based on the definition of the word, even though I showed you your definition is flawed.

If you can't be bothered to argue semantics, then you have no basis to argue against something based on the definition of the word. After all, your whole argument so far has been based on semantics--you have stated from the beginning that the religious implications are implicit in the word 'marriage'. You want to argue the meaning of a word, yet you can't be bothered to argue using semantics?

Again, just...wow. This is why I claim religious bigotry.

Similar doesn't mean the same. So your dictionary definition doesn't back up the point you wanted to make at all. It agrees with me. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Between a same sex couple it would be a gay marriage. Similar but not the same. Claim what you want but use some proper stuff to back up your arguments. Religious bigotry has nothing to do with it.

But it is still marriage which you want to deny. You claim that the term 'marriage' can only be used to describe a man and a woman and otherwise cannot be marriage. Call it 'gay marriage', but you still use the word 'marriage'. It is still in there.

So why are you against 'gay marriage' again?

Because that term is an oxymoron.

Let's see, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

So how is this term an oxymoron? 'Gay' is not the opposite of 'marriage', so it does not fit as an oxymoron.

Firstly, get a better dictionary.

Secondly I was being slightly ironic to make a point. Marriage is just that, marriage. If you need to add a descriptive word (in your case "gay") to alter the original word.......you are changing the definition.Gay dosn't have to be the "opposite" ; that's not what an oxymoron means.

First, please define the word "oxymoron". After all, there is nothing that contradicts 'marriage' in the word 'gay'. An oxymoron must be self-contradictory.

Second, if you know how to read a dictionary, then by the definition I supplied, the descriptive word does not need to be added to mean the same thing (any more than straight needs to be added to fit your definition). The definition I have is the same as Merriam-Webster supplies, so I can't see where I need a "better" dictionary--please elaborate where and why the one I have is inadequate.

Hoist by your own petard. I rest my case.

My word, but you are quite the bigot. Keep your mind closed to new ideas, forget ever changing the world in any way for the better, and just go stay in your hole.

I've ripped apart your arguments regularly, and yet you accuse me of failing to respond to your questions and statements, all while refusing to answer mine. Again, please indicate how 'gay' and 'marriage' are contradictory terms. Next, please elaborate on what your thought of a 'better' dictionary is.

Or do you want to quit discussing the definitions of words (including "marriage") because you can't be bothered to argue semantics?

Marriage means a man and a woman. Gay does not. Are you really so blinkered you can't see that?

Your abuse indicates you are not the cleverest person, so I choose to ignore it. Your lack of comprehension also indicates that .

"Marriage means a man and a woman." These are your exact words copied and for review. Yet I have provided evidence to show that the definition ALSO includes same-sex couples, but somehow you want to ignore it? Marriage does NOT mean a man and a woman--definition 1. b. from Merriam-Webster dictionary shows this. Yet you claim I am blind to the proper definition of the word and fail to provide me evidence for your definition?

Where am I failing to comprehend the sources I have offered?

You don't appear to understand your own dictionary quotes......1.a clearly states marriage is a man and a woman, you idiot!. I have just read some of your other stories and based on your upbringing I think I can understand why you struggle.....

My upbringing has nothing to do with this at all.

1.a. does state that marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree with that and will not argue that. However, 1.b. defines it also for same-sex couples. You want to pick and choose which definitions you use, and I'm the idiot?

I.b states a "similar" arrangement can exist between same sex couples, ie gay marriage. So marriage by that definition is not the same as gay marriage. It does not include gay marriage. Gay marriage is seperate but similar. Show me different if you can.....

But you're arguing that the word 'marriage' should not be applied to same-sex marriage. I don't care if you call it 'gay marriage' or not, it still is 'marriage'! The definition of the word 'marriage' DOES INCLUDE 'gay marriage'. It's right there! How can you deny that the definition exists?


67 More Responses

Well wouldn't you want to marry the person you love. And tell me why marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Like a legit reason not based on opinion something that I can't poke any holes into

Check out the answer I gave to EvesHarvest. I don't have a problem with gay people legitimising their relationship at all, I just wonder why they want to use the same term as straight people when they are not of the opposite sex.

I've read that but that doesn't answer my question

What is your question?

It didn't give me the legit reason that I can't poke any holes into. I mean just because its in the dictionary that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean it's set in stone. Words get added and deleted from the dictionary all the time and words meanings can change. As far as religion too many wholes can be poked into it because religion is something people are taught from the day we are born and is something we as a species will in fact believe blindly. So give me a logical reason for why the concept of marriage shouldn't apply to homosexuals

Marriage has to involve God. Which religion would allow gay or same sex couples to get married? Why not have a word like marriage for gay couples instead. Why do gay couples have to use a word that as of now doesn't apply to them? I am a man so I can never be Queen, can I? Why should I want to be something that is not available to me. That isn't hurting my equal rights, is it?

Why does marriage have to involve god? Is it because that's how we've always done it? How come we can't change the concept of marriage just because its not with a man and a woman I mean it's still marriage just with people of the same sex. The real reason why this is such an issue is because some people still see homosexuals as abominations and others are afraid of consequences in the after life for supporting it. I mean calling something else is just a loop hole that people can use to not give a gay couple all the rights a married couple would have just like the "separate but equal" thing

Homosexuals and lesbians can have all the legal rights they want. I have no problem with that. But if they want to have a religious marriage surely they have to start a religion that will allow then to get married? I don't know what will happen in the afterlife, none of us do. Homophobia is terrible. Allowing same sex couples to get married won't change anyone's attitudes, will it?

Why would a new religion need to be created? I'm sure that atheists can get married in a church so long as they're a man and a woman. I've yet to hear of a couple who couldn't get married because they didn't believe in god. And I said that calling gay marriage something other than marriage would give those against it a reason to not give a gay couple the same rights as a heterosexual would have if they got married. Their excuse would be its not marriage.

Why would atheists want to get married in a Church ? And how could they if they don't believe in God? What would be the point of being so fake? Gay couples can have equal legal rights now. Allowing gay couples to get married won't change that at all.

Well from my understanding of what you're trying to say is that the marriage doesn't mean anything or hasn't been done correctly if not done by the rules and regulations of God or by a given religion. What about the love factor? I mean does it really matter if 2 atheists get married in a church just as long as they love each other? And what about 2 Christian lesbians. Shouldn't the concept of marriage apply to them because they love each other and also believe in god? And, again, as far as calling gay marriage something other than marriage that will be a loop hole that those who are against gay rights would use to not give a homosexual couple all the rights a married heterosexual couple would have.

I really don't think you understand what marriage means. It has to involve God and two people of the opposite sex. That's not my rules, that's the rule. Anything else is not marriage.

Who says that's the way it'll always be? It can still change. It seems that you don't understand the concept of love. Your argument is still based on religion more than anything else.

You believe in marriage with no religious aspect. Love is part of that but it's not the important part. Not everyone in love gets married, do they? How do do define marriage?

What are you talking about love is definitely the most important part in marriage

Do you agree that pedophiles can love 5 year old kids....in your terms that would mean they should be able to get married in a church, right?

2 people who love each other. I mean that is the whole reason why people get married right? (Of course I'm not referring to those cultures where people marry off their daughters at a ridiculous young age)

Pedophiles love children....that version of love is sick and twisted, agreed?

Who made that rule then...and why don't you believe their should be rules about marriage?

Ok how about we just agree to disagree

Fine by me. Sorry you couldn't back up your beliefs!

It's not that I couldn't it's just that little notification of you commenting on this started to get on my nerves. How did we end up talking about pedophiles and children when the main argument is whether or not gay marriage should be called marriage when in fact the concept of marriage today is different than from biblical times. Proof that if it changed once it can change again. But hey I can't force you to believe me, I can't force you to agree with me. Better to just call it day.

Fair enough. You brought love into your argument when I didn't disagree about love as being the reason people should want to get married. The concept of marriage is still exactly the same as it ever was, just like the concept of any of the ten commandments. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman. Society can't change that but it can come up with alternatives so same sex couples have exactly the same legal rights. I don't believe in discrimination, and I am not homophobic. Let's call it a day. I didn't intend to start a slanging match.

Um no it's not. You can google it

"Which religion would allow gay or same sex couples to get married? "
Wicca, Paganism, Buddhism any religion that doesn't involve the mainstream god. Same-sex marriage is recognized all over the nation and 31 states. So you see, marriage is still not only between a man and woman. Society HAS changed that by the fact that same-sex couples can legally wed. You're not homophobic but you are against equal rights. Good day sir.

So a mainstream God is not the same as any other God???......keep blocking people, idiot!

Think the person meant a religion that isn't monotheistic

Think she can explain herself.....unless you know better than her?

Dude what the hell is your problem? All I meant was that she might be referring to a religion that doesn't have only one god. I didn't say I knew better than her all I did was state what I thought she meant by mainstream god

Why get involved in someone else's comment? Are you some kind of control freak?

Am I entitled to comment on beliefs held by other people? I think so....that's not trolling. I am pointing out that the group's main purpose is to subvert an accepted state of affairs...not to demand equal rights. You have equal rights...why try and take it further?

So I can't clarify what someone might mean for better understanding? Excuse me for trying to help you understand what she meant, I could be wrong. I just posted what I thought she meant when she said mainstream gods and that automatically makes me a control freak?

How arrogant of you to decide what someone else meant to say.....

You are enjoying this aren't you? You know damn well I didn't decide what she meant. I simply posted my opinion, what I THOUGHT she meant. She can feel free to correct me anytime. But you are indeed being a troll right now. You purposely over looked the word thought in my las comment when you replied. You are trying to **** me off because it amuses you. And please, try your best to prove me wrong

29 More Responses

You ask a lot of questions. Let me ask you--Why do straight people want to get married? What is the personal importance to you that the legal institution of marriage is only for people of the opposite sex? What is your stake in this?

I don't have a stake in this. The dictionary definition of marriagem and the religious one too, is that marriage can only be for people of opposite sex. The pressure is coming from gay people to change this, so they are the ones who need to be asked about why they want to change the concept of marriage.

As I said before why shouldn't they marry? Why should the concept of marriage be only for those of the opposite sex? Give me an answer that I I can't poke any holes into

Marriage is already an existing concept defined by religion. If you don't have a religion why would you want to get married in the eyes of GOD?

Marriage wasn't created or sanctioned by god. Why would anyone let someone else's religion dictate who they can't and can marry? I think you know the answers, but really refuse to see through other's eyes.

I don't think you get the point I am trying to make here. Religions exist. Marriage exists. Gay people exist. Isn't the way forward for a gay religion to endorse gay marriage between two gay people. That way everybody is happy?

You are setting yourself up as an expert on religion, ALL religions, and all religious people. You must have known you would get a lot of flak.

I am not setting myself up as an expert on all religious people. I am asking why gay people feel only being married will give them equal rights .

Uh, being able to marry isn't the only way gays want equal rights. How about you answer why you don't want them to have equal rights!

I have no problem at all with gay people having equal rights.


Which other rights do gay people want?

8 More Responses