"The Definition of Marriage"--why does it mean so much?

[the gadfly]

It seems to me "marriage" is a label. What does it matter? As long as you are functionally and legally married, does it really matter if you can say your are "married"? Is a label really that important?

 

[TTEchidna]

To a lot of people, it is. Gay and straight.

Those who want to be married to their partners but can't be because of what the law says want it because it would make them equal, in the eyes of the government, to any other married couple.

To straight people, it's the thing you do when you get into your late 20's. If you don't, you're thought to be just weird, and if you put it off too long, you're considered really weird. It's all peer pressure, really. Same reason why it's considered freaky if an older man is going out with a younger woman, or vice versa. It's just the way society's come to be.

Not that everyone falls for it. But honestly, after meeting someone, dating, and knowing them for several years, the next logical step for people, as dictated by society, is to marry them. And if the person you've met, dated, and known for several years is the same gender as you? Oh, gigantic middle finger in most states. Remember the big stink everyone made about Notchie not being able to evolve? Same thing here. You can't take the relationship to the next distinguished level officially, even if everything else is the same. You can get the Spiky-eared Pichu to level 100, but it can never be a Pikachu or Raichu, even if it can beat any Trainer in the game itself.

 

[the gadfly]

So then, the term "marriage" needs to be neutered. Fine by me.

 

[Koji-Kun]

Seriously, Koji, chill it. Not everyone who believes marriage is something sacred and don't support gay couples having marriages subconsciously thinks that they're better than everyone else. Mostly, it seems that they would just prefer that something they see as a moral wrong be kept out of something they find sacred; hence, where Satoshi's solution, or something similar, could hypothetically come into play.

Good thing you totally read my previous post and the point i'm stressing every time i say that. I never once said EVERYONE believes that. I said there are a lot of people who do. Not even the majority. But those who do believe it, grouped with those who just plain don't like the idea for other reasons, will stop it from happening.

Actually read my posts before telling me to "chill it". I'm not upset or anything, just voicing my different but equally valid opinion.

 

[Netto Azure]

So then, the term "marriage" needs to be neutered. Fine by me.

Yeah. I think that was said before.

But people kept on rebutting that "Civil Unions" won't be recognized in other countries and such. >.>

Kinda stupid since it's trying to bridge a wide divide. :/

 

[Champion Lance]

Specifically...Prop 8 was a proposition to overturn a ruling made earlier by the California Supreme Court. In 200...1, I think, there was a proposition called Prop 22, which was a motion to ban gay marriage. This was challenged by the courts and overturned. So Prop 8 was a proposition to overturn something that had already been overturned.

That's not quite correct.

You might have misspoken on that last sentence--I assume what you meant was that Prop 8 aimed to overturn a decision that overturned something else, yes? What you wrote suggests that Prop 8 was reinforcing the court ruling, and that is not true.

That said, Proposition 8 did not overturn anything. It added an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage, as this was the only thing that could render the CA SC's ruling against the previous proposition (on constitutional grounds) moot.

Courts overturn laws, legislatures and the populace do not: in this case, they circumvented the court. Now, they might override a veto, but that brings a wholly separate branch into the mix (and Governor Schwartzeneggar supports gay marriage regardless).

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Mostly, it seems that they would just prefer that something they see as a moral wrong be kept out of something they find sacred; hence, where Satoshi's solution, or something similar, could hypothetically come into play.

Although the definition of "moral wrong" is also somewhat strange, given that no one seems to have any trouble with letting convicted murders marry, or extortionists, or traitors, or so on.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

Although the definition of "moral wrong" is also somewhat strange, given that no one seems to have any trouble with letting convicted murders marry, or extortionists, or traitors, or so on.

Don't forget about registered sex offenders. They can marry too.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Um...I have a problem with those things. Convicted murderers should be, you know, executed and buried, extortionists locked up in prison, and traitors in Gitmo/Gitmo North. Sex offenders? There are women/men who go after them? But no, do a serious crime and one penalty should be that you are not allowed to have a legally recognized marriage or civil union.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

Good thing you totally read my previous post and the point i'm stressing every time i say that. I never once said EVERYONE believes that. I said there are a lot of people who do. Not even the majority. But those who do believe it, grouped with those who just plain don't like the idea for other reasons, will stop it from happening.

Actually read my posts before telling me to "chill it". I'm not upset or anything, just voicing my different but equally valid opinion.

I HAVE read your posts. You seem pretty adamant in your views -- we get it, basically. So you can stop repeating that particular point.

That's not quite correct.

You might have misspoken on that last sentence--I assume what you meant was that Prop 8 aimed to overturn a decision that overturned something else, yes? What you wrote suggests that Prop 8 was reinforcing the court ruling, and that is not true.

Yes, that is what I meant...sorry about not being clear.

 

[SilverThorn]

Equality for all! lol sorry i had to do it.

 

[claire_tigre]

ok, honestly, i didnt read all of the posts, in fact, i skipped pages 2 and 3. so im just going to give my views, and point out something that happend this past election year, where i live, and also share something you may not have seen, that i think is kinda cool.

not allowing gay marriage is wrong, plain and simple. i say this as a mostly hetero, married, devoutly christian woman. jesus would allow gay marriage, he may not like it, but it would be in keeping with his teachings. namely, love, forgiveness, and with extrapolation, letting others live as they want.

calling a union between a same sex couple anything other than marriage is discrimination, because it opens the door for things such as florida amendment no 2, on the 2008 ballot,and other pieces of legislation that specify one must be in a union defined as 'marriage' to take advantage of certain things.
it is also unconstitutional, because it creates a 'seperate but equal' institution, which the supreme court rules years ago, doesnt work.

now, the thing i thought was cool.
im going to link to a news story, about a Catholic California man, happily married for seven years to his wife, and his attempts to get people to understand why the argument 'to protect the sanctity of marriage' is dumb. (apologies if you believe its a valid argument, i dis agree, and couldnt find a better way to put that.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120969156&sc=fb&cc=fp

i wish i lived in california, so i could sign this guys petition. and then, if it makes it to a vote, vote for it.

 

[Wigglytuff]

jesus would allow gay marriage, he may not like it, but it would be in keeping with his teachings. guys petition. and then, if it makes it to a vote, vote for it.

Ahh don't go that far. Don't misconstrue his teachings, all he taught was love for everyone. Just because there are some questionable passages in the bible, that doesn't mean they should be attributed to Jesus. I've heard some claim that Jesus himself was gay.

 

[shining-Celebi]

People, back in biblical days, you could marry multiple women. In fact the hebrew word for "woman" and "wife" was synonymous.

Gays should marry and be recognized state and nation wide.

Anyone impeding upon this is a hypocrite.

 

[claire_tigre]

eh, the idea that jesus might have been gay bothers me.. you see, back then, it was perfectly acceptable for men to have sex, and it wasnt considered wrong or anyhting, it was just a way for emn to show that they cared. but, it wasnt gay either. a man back then would have sex with another man (or even a boy) for fun. attraction wasnt a part of it, neither was love, it was a way to vent sexual frustration. because sex with a woman was only to be done to create a child. not to have fun, not to show how much you love her. so, basically, the guy gets turned on by a girl, and goesto his best guy friend, tells him about the sexy lady, and they have sex while thinking of this girl.

now, a gay person today, they wouldnt have sex with someone of the opposite gender, atleast, it isnt their first choice. now, its ok to have sex with someone because you love them (and, unfortunately, even if you dont). so, while jesus may have been gay, to assume that is more likely because he had sex with men is incorrect.
and i was more referring to him not liking ones choice to wilingly enter into a relationship that has very little chance of creating a child.

 

[Axle Helios]

It's called the tyranny of majority. Under our form of government, it has no moral value. It just reflects the majority opinion of the options they're given. The majority opinion can be changed and in time it will be.

And that's democracy.

The "slippery slope" argument is this: Marriage becomes completely meaningless should gay marriage become legal. It isn't completely meaningless now - though high rates of divorce have dwindled its meaning considerably - and those of us who might want to get married in the future don't want to see Marriage lose all meaning.

I've already explained this to you:

How does 'two dudes' getting married make marriage meaningless? Allowing gay marriage to be legal does not mean that you have to celebrate it in your church. 'Legal marriage' and 'holy marriage' are not the same. Holy marriage is a holy joining of a man and a woman to be together 'til death do them part. Legal marriage means two people pay taxes together, and when death does them part, the other gets the stuff. Why don't you want a man's husband or a woman's wife to pay taxes together and get the inheritance. How does that make marriage meaningless?

Lastly, when you see the statistics that half of today's marriages end in divorce, how much worse can it get tomorrow when we throw in the figures for the gays?

Personally, I congratulate Arcane Mind for consistently standing up to argue his beliefs, however much I disagree with them.

I'd definitely say that no matter how much I disagree with him, Arcane Mind is one of the most important people in the Soap Box, because without him, it would just be, 'yes, I agree.'

The only solution at the moment would be to completely do away with the term "marriage" when it comes to the legally binding contract, and call them all unions or whatnot, and allow the churches be the only ones to perform "marriage ceremonies," which would just be church based. This way, we could actually see legal fairness with a legally binding contract that could actually apply to both gays and straights, and the churches could continue marrying whoever they wish (which includes gay couples in many churches).

</win>

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

eh, the idea that jesus might have been gay bothers me.. you see, back then, it was perfectly acceptable for men to have sex, and it wasnt considered wrong or anyhting, it was just a way for emn to show that they cared. but, it wasnt gay either. a man back then would have sex with another man (or even a boy) for fun. attraction wasnt a part of it, neither was love, it was a way to vent sexual frustration. because sex with a woman was only to be done to create a child. not to have fun, not to show how much you love her. so, basically, the guy gets turned on by a girl, and goesto his best guy friend, tells him about the sexy lady, and they have sex while thinking of this girl.

now, a gay person today, they wouldnt have sex with someone of the opposite gender, atleast, it isnt their first choice. now, its ok to have sex with someone because you love them (and, unfortunately, even if you dont). so, while jesus may have been gay, to assume that is more likely because he had sex with men is incorrect.
and i was more referring to him not liking ones choice to wilingly enter into a relationship that has very little chance of creating a child.

Or alternatly he--or anyone really--could have been gay and just not had sex. Or straight and not had sex. You don't have to do anything about it to have an orientation.

 

[Axle Helios]

So Jesus was gay? Screw you Da Vinci Code.
Sorry for going off-topic, I had to do it.