Palin- "Tolerant"

Tolerant. LOL

What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?

A pit bull is more tolerant.

 

"Marriage" has nothing to do with the church. The concept exists in every culture, and I imagine in every era: A life-long commitment to your "mate". Hell, even certain animals do it. In Christian countries it became the tradition to seal the deal it in a church, so what? For them to claim ownership of the concept of marriage is pretty damn arrogant, imo.

And now that taboos about homosexuality are being dispelled, there's a big outcry: IT CAN ONLY MEAN A MAN AND WOMAN.

They used to say a same-sex couple could never really 'love' each other, it was just some sick perversion. This quibbling over what constitutes marriage is another way of setting themselves apart, methinks.

"We're MARRIED. We're a FAMILY. What we have is more pure, wholesome, and all-American then what they have. To allow them the right to be considered "married" would be to imply that THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS AS MEANINGFUL AS OURS! Blasphemy. Call it something else, make up another term. It's...uh...Civil Unions! YAH, THAT'S IT! Man and women get married, but same sex couples get...civilly unified. Phew, crisis averted!"

And yet why make up a new word, when we already have one? People saying it's confusing...just stop. It's NOT confusing. If I told you another man was my husband, there would be no confusion over what I meant.

 

Ok, take the UK or US for instance, "marriage" as has been developed in these countries as a religous ceremony and is between a man and a woman.
If those countries wish to keep marriage between a man and a woman but are giving gay people their own legal recognition, again, what is the big deal about calling it "marriage".
What is wrong with "civil partnership/Union"?
The only people that may (or should) have an issue with it are religous gay people.
Let them bash that one out with the church.
Along with the other plethora of issues they need to sort out.

I understand religeon or the state was not the first to come up with "marriage" - but, we blanket many unions and ceremonies as "marriage".
IMO I think it is best to call all variations as "weddings".
I can accept a wedding is the union of two people.
The definition of "marriage" can vary IMO.

Marriage as I understand it today, is a legal contract and a religous ceremony.

Legaly speaking (in the majority of countries) "marriage" is defined as being between a man and a woman.
If countries wish to redifine "marriage", great, let them do it.
My issue is where countries don't want to; why should they?
If they are giving gay people the same rights or are moving along to get them the same rights, what's the big deal with one word?

I'm not suggesting gay people should not enjoy the same rights, under the law, as a husband and wife.

It seems an awful lot of fuss over a word.

Clearly I would.
I was just saying what you would expect when somebody says: "marriage".
I thought that was your point!
It is not the best arguement for keeping "marriage" between a man and a woman, granted.

 

Take that one up with Americans, I'm not American.
I certainly don't feel that way.

 

I'd be careful about using the term everybody. Hell, there are cultures, like Thailand, that believe in three genders, which kind of fucks up the one man one woman thing.

Hell, even the bible defines marriage as between one man, several women, and a few concubines for good measure. The man is the unquestioned head of the family, and his women are considered property.

The truth is, our idea of marriage has changed substantially over time, from the biblical view, to our more modern view of monogamy, with equal rights for the women. We have inter-racial marriages and inter-faith marriages, subjects that were once incredibly taboo, but are now seen as unexceptional, mundane even.

There is no such thing as a traditional definition of marriage.

 

ah, but therein lies the kicker. Several churches do recognize same-sex unions. By your logic, these marriages should be legal because they were carried out in a church, presumably with god's blessing.

really, if you think about it, being against gay marriage is being against freedom of religion. It forces the state to explicitly endorse the view of one religion over another.

 

True, I should not have said: "Everybody."

But, as far as I can see the Law in Thailand would not legaly recognise a marriage other than as a "Husband and Wife", that being there a Man and a Woman:
http://www.samuiforsale.com/Civil_Code_text_English_III.html#1434

I could be reading it wrong.
It might have been updated.

Note: Man / Woman (however many that might be ).
Not: Man / Man - Woman / Woman

I know.

What I was trying to say is what is wrong with keeping the status quo if rights are being afforded to same sex unions?
All I am saying it seems a huge over heated arguement.
One I am having right now it seems.

If you can find anything in the Koran and The Bible etc that accepts the marriage of same sex couples, I'd be keen to read what it has to say.
I thought they all were on the same page there.

No, not presumably with gods blessing.
Mans blessing.

I should have been more nuanced here, I appreciate that.
When I say: "The Church", I don't mean individual Christian denominations.
I mean the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches etc.
I'm not sure which denomination you are talking about, the only ones I know that bless same sex unions not actual marriage is: United Church of Christ The Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
You have said it yourself: "Several churches do recognize same-sex unions", but then IMO decided to add something that is not as far as I know a reality: "these marriages".
You can't just say it is so and that makes it so.
That is the point here the distinction between marriage and a union.

I know you can find a church that has decided to bless a gay union as if it was a marriage, but it is still not legaly binding.

The reason I say why make a big deal out of a word is because even if marriage is re-defined religously and legaly, the law will still have to be tailored to take into account a myriad of legalities that can't be solved by merely shifting one word for another.
It is not as simple as that.
It will also dictate how religeon has to be interpreted.
You talk about: freedom of religion.
Then wish for that freedom to be dictated to (strange).

I really have over thought this as all I am saying is, I can't see the big deal if gay people are getting the same rights merely under another name.
Seems a tad pointless to me.

 

Check out the book, Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Intolerance. Just google it, It is an older well researched review of what the bible and church actually say. Up until an era of social intolerance same marriages were legal and condoned by the church. The church had rituals which were perormed to join two men or two women. The reason there is limited same sex marriage now is Social Intolerance...not some word of god.

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPR11,M1

am reading...

 

Just kidding around a bit.
I understand what you are getting at for the most part though.

 

Thanks.
Thought I may have been going mad.

 

No more than the rest of us.

 

Marriage is for everyone.

 

Yah, I can hear that.

 

Phew - thank you.