Let`s see...
- Thread starter Mosch
- Start date
Ebonbuddha
Active member
Its not always church members who are against it. I know people who are agnostic and antheist who don\'t like homosexuals either. My wife\'s bestfriend is gay and he is very annoyed with \"whining homosexuals\". He said, \"We don\'t have to call it marriage. We can call it something else. Give it another name. Its just some homosexuals want to stick it to the conservative straights.\" Maybe the true goal is lost by people wanting to prove a point or being bull headed. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Sithtainius
stupid conserveritive- church driven government....it gay people want to marry what business is it of anyone else\'s? I swear every time I see those bible thumpers on tv shouting about how that will ruin america and that it\'s wrong and god says so and their right and everyone who has a differant opinion is wrong \'cos a book says so, I want to get up and reach through the tv and strangle their scrawny holier-than-thou necks!!:flame:
Originally posted by Ebonbuddha
Its not always church members who are against it. I know people who are agnostic and antheist who don\'t like homosexuals either. My wife\'s bestfriend is gay and he is very annoyed with \"whining homosexuals\". He said, \"We don\'t have to call it marriage. We can call it something else. Give it another name. Its just some homosexuals want to stick it to the conservative straights.\" Maybe the true goal is lost by people wanting to prove a point or being bull headed. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Sithtainius
stupid conserveritive- church driven government....it gay people want to marry what business is it of anyone else\'s? I swear every time I see those bible thumpers on tv shouting about how that will ruin america and that it\'s wrong and god says so and their right and everyone who has a differant opinion is wrong \'cos a book says so, I want to get up and reach through the tv and strangle their scrawny holier-than-thou necks!!
EB, while I respect the opinion of your wife\'s friend, I don\'t think just because a gay wants to get married they are whiners. (Although I\'ll whole-heartedly agree that there are definitely whiny gays out there. In fact I know a few!)
My biggest problem with the government is that they should not let the church dictate who and who shouldn\'t have a civil service marriage. (Hence, my agreement with Sith.) If the church doesn\'t want to marry gays - that\'s their prerogative. But, the church shouldn\'t have any say in the matter whether the country/state decides to do civil unions. There\'s that whole seperation of church and state that we\'re supposed to pride ourselves on that many people want to discount.
I just had this same conversation with a British friend who lives here and she said that in Britain/Europe/etc. it\'s just not an issue. It used to be - in the late 1800\'s/early 1900\'s.
So, considering we\'re such a younger country I see us as going through our \"teenage years\" (arrogant know-it-alls) and we\'ll eventually catch up to everyone else in their middle-wiser-years!
I think there is some truth in this, and there are a lot of outspoken people on this issue who are this way, however, largely I disagree with that point of view.
Marriage is a social constructed union which has been ingrained in all of us since birth. Despite the option of divorce, marriage symbolizes a level of permenancy and commitment that will never be matched by \"civil union\". Marriage is a lifelong committment based on the love of 2 people, a civil union sounds like a relatively sterile contract.
While I think in terms of legal issues (mostly tax and estate), gays should have all the same rights, I think they also should not be disallowed from access to this deeply ingrained symbol of the permenant love between two people. Just because they have a different lifestyle, does not mean they have not grown up in society and absorbed the values and traditions therein.
See, it just really rankles me that the primary opposition is by the religious right.
I\'m personally in agreement that there should be a SEPARATION of church and state. Church should not be able to tell the govt. what laws are suitable.
It was one of the most beautiful things I\'d ever seen when I got to be a part of my friends\' \"commitment ceremony\". I was happy to see the MASSES of gays that took the opportunity when we (here in Oregon) finally passed something that allowed them to marry.
It got repealed of course. But by the sheer numbers that turned out the first 2 days to get married, it was popular.
I\'m personally in agreement that there should be a SEPARATION of church and state. Church should not be able to tell the govt. what laws are suitable.
It was one of the most beautiful things I\'d ever seen when I got to be a part of my friends\' \"commitment ceremony\". I was happy to see the MASSES of gays that took the opportunity when we (here in Oregon) finally passed something that allowed them to marry.
It got repealed of course. But by the sheer numbers that turned out the first 2 days to get married, it was popular.
leopardpixie
Active member
he he lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
lollollol:innocent:lollollol
Ebonbuddha
Active member
He never said they were whiners. He is tired of some homosexuals whining. And he\'s saying that those that are whining are just doing it to prove apoint.
And like he said, and I agree with him. You don\'t have to call it marriage. You can easily call it something else.
And like he said, and I agree with him. You don\'t have to call it marriage. You can easily call it something else.
Originally posted by RedDawn
Originally posted by Ebonbuddha
Its not always church members who are against it. I know people who are agnostic and antheist who don\'t like homosexuals either. My wife\'s bestfriend is gay and he is very annoyed with \"whining homosexuals\". He said, \"We don\'t have to call it marriage. We can call it something else. Give it another name. Its just some homosexuals want to stick it to the conservative straights.\" Maybe the true goal is lost by people wanting to prove a point or being bull headed. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Sithtainius
stupid conserveritive- church driven government....it gay people want to marry what business is it of anyone else\'s? I swear every time I see those bible thumpers on tv shouting about how that will ruin america and that it\'s wrong and god says so and their right and everyone who has a differant opinion is wrong \'cos a book says so, I want to get up and reach through the tv and strangle their scrawny holier-than-thou necks!!
EB, while I respect the opinion of your wife\'s friend, I don\'t think just because a gay wants to get married they are whiners. (Although I\'ll whole-heartedly agree that there are definitely whiny gays out there. In fact I know a few!)
My biggest problem with the government is that they should not let the church dictate who and who shouldn\'t have a civil service marriage. (Hence, my agreement with Sith.) If the church doesn\'t want to marry gays - that\'s their prerogative. But, the church shouldn\'t have any say in the matter whether the country/state decides to do civil unions. There\'s that whole seperation of church and state that we\'re supposed to pride ourselves on that many people want to discount.
I just had this same conversation with a British friend who lives here and she said that in Britain/Europe/etc. it\'s just not an issue. It used to be - in the late 1800\'s/early 1900\'s.
So, considering we\'re such a younger country I see us as going through our \"teenage years\" (arrogant know-it-alls) and we\'ll eventually catch up to everyone else in their middle-wiser-years!
Ebonbuddha
Active member
The fact is you don\'t have to call it marriage. I sgree with him on this. BUT, I do think their union shopuld have the same benefits are a heterosexual union.Why shouldn\'t they if a common law marriage have rights?
You said, \"Marriage is a social constructed union which has been ingrained in all of us since birth.\" Anything that can be socially constructed can be deconstructed.
So, this is one more reason that we can make another category for alternative life style unions. It is only a name being fought over.
There are a lot of people who have a union just as strong if not strong than most marriages.
Maybe we have put so much importance into the word we have forgot what the meaning is suppose to be.
You said, \"Marriage is a social constructed union which has been ingrained in all of us since birth.\" Anything that can be socially constructed can be deconstructed.
So, this is one more reason that we can make another category for alternative life style unions. It is only a name being fought over.
There are a lot of people who have a union just as strong if not strong than most marriages.
Maybe we have put so much importance into the word we have forgot what the meaning is suppose to be.
Ebonbuddha
Active member
I just noticed this. The way mine is going now, I second this. lol
I think perhaps our different opinions stem from our value of language. You mention we should just call it something different, and make the union in every way the same other than that. However I think that for a huge majority of the population, launguage so defines our thinking that just calling it something different makes it something different. One you change the name you lose the 1000\'s of years of history, associated with it. Poems on marriage no longer apply, literature on marriage no longer apply, the simple fact is that a lot of cultural meening of a union of love is lost in the name change. Sure there are exceptions, and many people have lifelong loving relationships without marriage, but I truely believe that they are the exceptions.
What you\'re saying is logical and pragmatic, however look around this world of ours. The lengths people are willing to go to preserve their cultural traditions and history far outwieghs any value given to logic or pragmatism.
Yes this is all social constructed, and you mention then why can\'t we simply deconstruct it? First, why should these people have to? Second, there is profound importance in the construction, it defines who we are in many many ways. Taking away marriage is akin to taking away palastine from the palastinians. Why can\'t we just give them other land? Their value placed in the land is also socially constructed.
I don\'t argue with you that some people focus on the title and not the meaning, but this happens regardless of sexual orientation, and there is a hell of a lot more attached here than that.
I would like anyone on the boards who is married to think back when you proposed/were proposed to, to think back to those words \"will you marry me\" and how that made your heart skip a beat, how 1000 thoughts ran through your head in an instant about spending your entire rest of your life with this person. Now tell me if they looked into your eyes, and asked \"would you partake in a civil union with me\" if that would have been the same thing?
The fact is taking \"marriage\" away, isn\'t just taking away their right to use a word, it\'s taking away their right to participate in their own culture.
I\'ll share a bit...please don\'t misconstrue my beliefs as me comdemning anyone else\'s beliefs. It\'s simply not the case.
Me \"dating\" and me \"married\" are two different things. Not to \"force\" religion (or my beliefs on marriage, for that matter) into the picture, as I know there are a multitude of disparate beliefs on the board----
But for me, my marriage vows were not just a vow to my wife, it was a vow to God. A promise that I made with my faith, my heart and my soul---that I would spend the rest of my life with the woman I chose to marry.
Remembering these vows allows me to make good decisions inside my marriage. Such as when the goin\' gets a little rough, as it will for everyone, I know that my energy is best spent at home--and not elsewhere. Basically, it helps me avoid the self-destructive behavior that plagues so many other marriages....and all I have to do is remember the promises I made...and intend to keep.
For me, that makes *all* the difference.
Kev
Me \"dating\" and me \"married\" are two different things. Not to \"force\" religion (or my beliefs on marriage, for that matter) into the picture, as I know there are a multitude of disparate beliefs on the board----
But for me, my marriage vows were not just a vow to my wife, it was a vow to God. A promise that I made with my faith, my heart and my soul---that I would spend the rest of my life with the woman I chose to marry.
Remembering these vows allows me to make good decisions inside my marriage. Such as when the goin\' gets a little rough, as it will for everyone, I know that my energy is best spent at home--and not elsewhere. Basically, it helps me avoid the self-destructive behavior that plagues so many other marriages....and all I have to do is remember the promises I made...and intend to keep.
For me, that makes *all* the difference.
Kev
Ebonbuddha
Active member
Well in that case the conservative are right. When you allow same sex marriages, you are destroying their heritage and belief to make way for yours. Atleast the way I am suggesting isn\'t destroying apart of someone\'s tradition. I\'m simply saying come up with a new category. It can still have the same importance. To be truthful, marriage only has the value we place on it because we are taught. So, teach a new way. That way nothing is destroyed. Are Common law marriages less than \"real\" marriages? Do the couples love each other less? Of course not.
I think everyone here believes that gays should have the right to get married (and if you don\'t - sorry, didn\'t see your post - and that the \"problem\" is simply in the verbage used.
Grumb and I had a civil service, but we\'re still \"married.\" While I agree that language can mean a lot to people, if it doesn\'t mean a lot to you then it\'s just a word.
I don\'t mean to say that anyone\'s marriage means any less to them if they had a civil service vs. a church ceremony - just that some people don\'t care if they have a church ceremony and whether or not it\'s a covenant with God. (I\'m athiest and Grumb\'s agnostic.)
So, I don\'t think \"civil union\" will replace \"marriage\" in culture and how people ask other people to marry them.
@EricJ - when I think back to how Grumb asked me to marry him - I laugh! The first thing out of my mouth was, \"Are you sure?\" We still laugh about that! lol
@Duende (& everyone else - including you Terry!) - are you nuts?! That picture is WAAAAYYYYY better than my actual pics. THANKS DUENDE - I actually look good in THAT pic! lol
(Believe me - you DO NOT want to see me in a bathing suit - at least not now! When I was younger.... *reminiseces fondly of the time some water skiiers passed me in my little black, leather-looking bikini and wiped out as they went by.... Of course, that might have been because they were blinded from the glare off my white, haven\'t-seen-sun-in-9-months skin*
Grumb and I had a civil service, but we\'re still \"married.\" While I agree that language can mean a lot to people, if it doesn\'t mean a lot to you then it\'s just a word.
I don\'t mean to say that anyone\'s marriage means any less to them if they had a civil service vs. a church ceremony - just that some people don\'t care if they have a church ceremony and whether or not it\'s a covenant with God. (I\'m athiest and Grumb\'s agnostic.)
So, I don\'t think \"civil union\" will replace \"marriage\" in culture and how people ask other people to marry them.
@EricJ - when I think back to how Grumb asked me to marry him - I laugh! The first thing out of my mouth was, \"Are you sure?\" We still laugh about that! lol
@Duende (& everyone else - including you Terry!) - are you nuts?! That picture is WAAAAYYYYY better than my actual pics. THANKS DUENDE - I actually look good in THAT pic! lol
(Believe me - you DO NOT want to see me in a bathing suit - at least not now! When I was younger.... *reminiseces fondly of the time some water skiiers passed me in my little black, leather-looking bikini and wiped out as they went by.... Of course, that might have been because they were blinded from the glare off my white, haven\'t-seen-sun-in-9-months skin
*