Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Voters in 11 states reject gay marriage

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

---

Yes. Yes it has. But if you want to suddenly be inclusive of the definitions that other cultures because it's convenient (exactly what my point was) why do you get to pick and choose what parts of what definitions you want to accept?

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

---

Yes. Yes it has. But if you want to suddenly be inclusive of the definitions that other cultures use because it's convenient (exactly what my point was) why do you get to pick and choose what parts of what definitions you want to accept?

---

Because its his opinion, and his beliefs.

Originally posted by sigma:

---

A definition that has changed throughout the years.

---

Originally posted by 98 SE:

---

Originally posted by svtcarboy:

---

While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into their Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

---

And the carboy speaks!

Being a practicing Catholic, my views are slightly contradictory. Marriage is a holy sacrament between a Catholic man and woman as I belive. However, this is where separation of church and state come in. I support the legal union of couples whether heterosexual or gay. As the government has decided it is okay to use the term "marriage" for heterosexual legal partnerships it is only fitting therefore that the same term for all couples to legally come together.

It all comes down to a definition of the word "marriage," which has lost its original meaning among today's society. Personally I would consider all non-religious "married" couples to be simply under "civil union" relationships, but as the government has decided to associate the word "marriage" to those relationships I see absolutely no reason why gay couples should not legally "marry" in the terms of the government. The difference between common-law "marriage" and "civil union" if passed will yield results exactly as James says: separate.

FWIW - As for my religious views on homosexual relationships, that is another debate. (I personally am at constant moral dilemma as to whether I do or do not support it given recent information and findings versus traditional views and age-old facts.) Regardless of religious (or even moral) views though, legal views are an entirely separate matter and should be treated as such. And I do have gay friends.

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

A definition that has changed throughout the years.

---

Since when did it change? I think it's been purdy consistent.

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

oo no not change your meaning of marriage,, but the meaning yes...

---

are you trying to differentiate between "mine," "your," and "the" meaning of marriage?