Thought I might post this because there seems to be a great misunderstanding on the part of the religious right as to what marriage really is. It is not a Christian institution. It is not a religious institution. It is not holy. It is not sacred. It is a legal contract. The gay rights movement does not wish to destroy your marriage in some vast conspiracy, they simply want the same benefits outlined below. Its is a social contract. Face it, accept it. Anything more than that is determined by you and your partner, the government is not here to exclude some so that the imagined holiness of an event may be protected at the cost of equal rights. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
.... Is the legal status of marriage too much to refute or something? I find it amusing that threads will go on forever about how evil gay people are and how they are gay by choice, however when the irrefutable secular legal benefits of marriage are posted (this is not the first time I have posted this), it goes ignored.
All of which has already been attained through the legalization of what is call a "civil union". All marriages are civil unions, there is no reason however for all civil unions to be marriages. The proof is in Europe, where gay marriage is legal and it really never caused a mass rush to the altar by gays. Instead, it's just seen as a societal "stamp of approval" legitimizing the gay lifestyle. American society is not ready to legitimize the gay lifestyle. Why can't you people just accept that?
..and civil unions achieve that without offending people who want to protect the semantical meaning of marriage. There is no reason for gays to push a semantical argument over a civil contract of union unless it was to intentionally rub the noses of larger society in their gaping (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.
errr... http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx Gee...you're batting 1000 today...well done Sonny!
There is no "semantical meaning" of marriage, it is red herring. It is not a Christian institution. It is not a religious institution. It is not holy. It is not sacred. It is a legal contract. What I see at work are marriage licenses. Not civil union licenses. Heterosexuals couples do not receive civil union licenses, but marriage licenses. Your argument is moot by the very issuance of marriage licenses to recognize the union between the two people.
Marriage is not a religious institution. But I would argue that it is not a social contract either. Marriage is a social construct that was adopted over time to solve (or at least minimize) certain social problems. In my opinion, the primary function of marriage is to reduce violence among males competing for mates, since human sexual behavior appears to be polygynous and polymorphic, rather a cross between our nearest relatives the bonobos and chimpanzees. Marriage has an animal/social function that was deliberately designed to short-circuit human nature. This does not make marriage bad; it makes it a "law," as many of our laws come in the form of "thou shalt not do what comes naturally." It does, however, make marriage artificial, a practical/rational contruct meant to affect our social behavior.
There are many things that we apparently ought to do that we are apparently not ready for. In 1860 we were not ready to get rid of slavery. Does that mean I (or you) should accept slavery had we lived in that time? I certainly hope not.
Why not push for a compromise, something that would allow both sides to get most of what they want? Even GW Bush (Barack Obama as well) agreed to the idea of civil unions, that besides the name "marriage," pretty much had all of the things that you posted as "marriage." I would suggest that we take marriage away as a legal thing, and make civil union be the legal thing. Have marriage simply be a church thing.
Hmmmmmm..... an interesting point. However I am not sure if I entirely agree. Your argument could very well apply to the majority of the populace, however there are those like myself who may not want to get married, however certainly prefer a monogamous relationship over a polygamous/palygamous relationship. Less stress imo. Thats what my AR-15's are for. Ha.
As long as both forms of relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, are treated equally, I would have an issue with that. However, I believe the probability or achieving a marriages status for homosexuals is probably higher than heterosexuals giving up their perceived "marriage status" for a civil union.
No they don't.. they want information about jobs, the economy, US foreign policy.. They simply don't care what people do in their bedrooms. You are being misled by the amount of noise from a minority...
"8: The Mormon Proposition" is a good example of how the very few can sway the opinion of the masses.
I'm certainly not going ot disallow a re-rationalization of human society, and hence marriage. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I'm also not going to argue for the absoluteness of a law. Laws have functions. When those functions cease to be relevant, the laws relating to it should wiped. We live in an interesting time because we see this happening right before our eyes with attempt to expand marriage to include homosexual relationships. I would offer that another example relates to "collateral damage" in war. That lots of civilians would get in the way of a war and just so happen to die used to be patently obvious to nearly everyone. Now we are less accepting of this military logic, even when it is caused by our own military. It is no longer so easy to excuse manslaughter at best and murder at worst by appeal to the chaos of war.
It's harsh but true. When the current crop of old people die off, there will be virtually no one left to defend old-fashioned marriage.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Then this "marriage" you speak about between two people of the same sex would be a form of matrimony?
I know what the legal theory in domestic law says about the subject, however, that was a question that was directed at a particular person in an attempt to find out more about what that particular person has in mind regarding marriage/matrimony and the relationship between the two terms. Thanks for your input though.
