A question on the definition of "gay marriage"

[Vayshan]

Offtopic: never realized how many gay people were on mmo-c! at this rate we should have our own sub-forum

i think boub would be down for it, i think hes secretly gay... no straight man has that many Garfield plushies.

Offtopic reply:"Oh may gawd, yes! A thousand times yes! Sry was watching American Dad :P Dunno about a seperate forum for 'us', doesn't that just further our distinction?

[cutterx2202]

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire thread that revolved around the discussion of classifying "gay marriage" and "normal marriage" differently. (Separate but equal argument)

I haven't read it yet, I'm getting to that - just responding to OP first. But you should know, there can't be any discussion or figuring out definitions - they're already set. It is what it is.

Marriage = man + woman's broad institution involving many requirements deeply routed in religion (summarized)
Civil Union = Gay couple mimicing the same institution.
Gay marriage = oxymoron
Straight marriage = redundant

I'll give it a read.

[ApsalusEdge]

Okay, you're going to read the title and wonder "The hell so hard to understand?"

Well, to be honest, it just wasn't easy to phrase the whole question in the title. So... here it is! Long post below. I know, it sucks. If you plan on skimming the first tidbit and saying "TL;DR", I reccomend you don't.

I'm a gay male. 19 years old, to be 20 in a few months. When asked how long I've known I was gay, I respond with "I don't know. When did you know you were straight". I am not currently in any sort of long-term relationship. But, that's enough about me, I had a question regarding the "right" to marry.

The way I see it, I could care less if my partner and I could have the actual... I guess, "title" of marriage. Honestly, if the government was able to just see the two of us and give us the exact same rights as a married couple, what's the difference? I don't need a piece of paper that says "married" to know I'm with the person I love. I'd just like a piece of paper that says something along the lines of "Two dudes that get jiggy with it, live with each other, love each other, and plan on living with each other for the rest of their lives (who have the same rights as a married couple)"

If I'm not mistaken, (I know it's a logical fallacy to make such a large generalization) a vast majority of the anti-gay-marriage movement is fueled by religion. I think it's pretty hard to deny that marriage is, in itself, a religious institution. It just so happens to be that since we were founded on religion (Yeah, I don't like admitting it either, but stop fooling yourselves) the religious institution is also an equally important legal one.

I think we, as a society, have evolved to a point where we could easily separate "marriage" and a "partnership" as two completely separate, yet often intertwining institutions. I'm pretty sure this would solve the issues on BOTH sides. The religious folk wouldn't have to worry about their religious ceremony getting... well, "tainted", however they'd like to put it, and gays would have equal rights.

But, the most important question of all: Do other gays feel the same way as I do? Do you actually care about the "marriage" part, or do you just want to be recognized on the same level legally as a married couple?

Looking forward to hearing some good feedback! Keep it civil, people. Seriously.

Okay, to save myself alittle I've chosen to reply only to the opening post. I for one agree with you and am not one to care about the flash and title of 'marriage', and like wise would like to only need to worry about the equal rights and legal benefits that comes with marriage. If the religious nuts and their ilk want to keep 'their ceremony' clean that's fine then. I think they should not be getting in the way of our legal benefits and equal opportunities for those benefits.

[TofuBeast]

2012 has nothing to do with the fact men cant have kids never will or meant to have. hence sex is for reproducion only. so how do gays answer this? can u have kids with out adoption surrogcy ect?
bottom line men and women is how its meant to be and thats mother nature talking not emo kids who think being gay is normal or accepted.

Sex is for reproduction only? Are we in the dark ages?

[Lysah]

Sex is for reproduction only? Are we in the dark ages?

Yes, actually, we do seem to be.

[semaphore]

Well, seeing as the definition of marriage involves a man and woman, and is religious also by definition, it sounds to me like you're more worried about equal opportunity for the priviledges.
<...>
It's a very personal, religious institution by definition

False and false and false. You are redefining an ancient social institution to suit your religious views, with no basis in reality or history. Marriage is not religious, it is a social institution common to every culture on Earth. How can marriage be religious by definition, if it pre-dates religion (including what is presumably your particular religion by tens of millennia)?

It is true that not long after the creation of Christianity, the Church tried to monopolise marriage within Christendom. But you do realise that the rest of the world actually exists, right? Not every single religion even claims marriage to be religious anyway, and yet all the communities that subscribe to them practised marriage long before Christianity (or which ever religion you think defines marriage) arrived. The fact is that that plenty of people throughout history married in non-religious ceremonies, both in Medieval Europe and in the rest of the world.

Today most of Europe mandates civil marriages. Conversely, the majority of countries that requires marriages to be religious are highly religious Islamic states. And in many parts of the non-Abrahamic world, marriage has never been thought of as religious in the first place.

I haven't read it yet, I'm getting to that - just responding to OP first. But you should know, there can't be any discussion or figuring out definitions - they're already set. It is what it is.

You are right - it is what it is, which isn't a religious institution between man and woman. Terms are not defined by you insisting that there can't be any discussion, they are defined by the actual facts of what the term represents.

[Gestopft]

I haven't read it yet, I'm getting to that - just responding to OP first. But you should know, there can't be any discussion or figuring out definitions - they're already set. It is what it is.

Marriage = man + woman's broad institution involving many requirements deeply routed in religion (summarized)
Civil Union = Gay couple mimicing the same institution.
Gay marriage = oxymoron
Straight marriage = redundant

I'll give it a read.

Just a few things (reiterations from the thread, really):

1) definitions can change
2) the definition of marriage changes from culture to culture (and between time periods)
3) marriage was around long before the religions that think they control it today
4) any tangible benefits you receive from being married are granted because of a piece of paper that you give to the government, not the words of a holy man that represents (insert your particular deity here).

[Bannhammer]

I think this has probably been stated..... but what if we considered both homosexual and heterosexual couples as civil unions in the eyes of the law, and allowed the religious institutions to do their own thing; marrying couples that they want. Thus, in the eyes of the law, neither couple is discriminated against, and they both are civil unions....and the marriages would be enacted by the religious groups. This separates church and state, and provides equality in the eyes of the law (where it matters) to both sets of unions.

[strossus001]

oh okay, silly me... you said extinction i wasn't aware when one animal died because it failed to reproduce (what?) it's called extinction.

that was sarcasm, by the way.

seriously you said animals that engage in homosexuality go extinct, i gave you list of species that are far from extinct that engage in homosexuality (some of the animals in that list have a 1/5 homosexuality ratio) and you claim this is me failing to apply logic... huh?

I wish people were smarter. I really do.

The point wasn't buried, disguised, or hard-to-grasp in any way, but here you are, stuck like a fly on a piece of fresh shit. Whatever made you would be damn proud of the work they invested, huh?

Infracted: Post Respectfully

[Vhoosh]

I think this has probably been stated..... but what if we considered both homosexual and heterosexual couples as civil unions in the eyes of the law, and allowed the religious institutions to do their own thing; marrying couples that they want. Thus, in the eyes of the law, neither couple is discriminated against, and they both are civil unions....and the marriages would be enacted by the religious groups. This separates church and state, and provides equality in the eyes of the law (where it matters) to both sets of unions.

Because marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a cultural idea that dates back to way before religion existed. Many scholars believe the idea of marriage dates back to before recorded times. Yes there are people married in churches, but if you think about it you have Christian marriages, Catholic marriages, Jewish marriages, and so on. Why should they be allowed to have exclusive use of the word marriage and force others into a civil union thus turning us into "second class" citizens. It should be about equality for all whether you are lgbt, straight, religious, atheist, or what have you.

[Bannhammer]

However, marriage does have that connotation of being a religious term, and no matter how much the debate may rage over the origins, and who has ownership, marriage is a cultural term. To avoid the connotations and the baggage that it carries, a legal term should be created to describe a proper relationship between two people, in the eyes of the law. To use marriage in a legal sense delves deep in the traditions and values of just about every religion out there, and complicates a process that could be eased by simply changing some words around. I don't think many people have problems with two people being unified in the eyes of the law, with the same rights and privileges... however, some people do have a problem with certain people being "married". By evening the playing field, and creating a new legal term for a couple, this whole raging debate is defunct. And plus, you can't really enforce religions to respect a "marriage", even if you wanted to; freedom of religion and what not.

[cutterx2202]

Saying marriage, or humans existed before religion came about is ignorant. Humans have had religion for their entire history. Minus rep points in my book for making that argument.

---------- Post added 2012-02-06 at 06:43 AM ----------

However, marriage does have that connotation of being a religious term, and no matter how much the debate may rage over the origins, and who has ownership, marriage is a cultural term. To avoid the connotations and the baggage that it carries, a legal term should be created to describe a proper relationship between two people, in the eyes of the law. To use marriage in a legal sense delves deep in the traditions and values of just about every religion out there, and complicates a process that could be eased by simply changing some words around. I don't think many people have problems with two people being unified in the eyes of the law, with the same rights and privileges... however, some people do have a problem with certain people being "married". By evening the playing field, and creating a new legal term for a couple, this whole raging debate is defunct. And plus, you can't really enforce religions to respect a "marriage", even if you wanted to; freedom of religion and what not.

A very eloquent and thoughtful post.

[Bannhammer]

Thank you cutterx2202; I appreciate the compliment. *bow

[starlord]

However, marriage does have that connotation of being a religious term, and no matter how much the debate may rage over the origins, and who has ownership, marriage is a cultural term. To avoid the connotations and the baggage that it carries, a legal term should be created to describe a proper relationship between two people, in the eyes of the law. To use marriage in a legal sense delves deep in the traditions and values of just about every religion out there, and complicates a process that could be eased by simply changing some words around. I don't think many people have problems with two people being unified in the eyes of the law, with the same rights and privileges... however, some people do have a problem with certain people being "married". By evening the playing field, and creating a new legal term for a couple, this whole raging debate is defunct. And plus, you can't really enforce religions to respect a "marriage", even if you wanted to; freedom of religion and what not.

i dont see why it matters at all. not all religions are against homosexuality. and it doesnt matter if the religions accept it or not.. athiests get married all the time.

[Chrysia]

Saying marriage, or humans existed before religion came about is ignorant. Humans have had religion for their entire history. Minus rep points in my book for making that argument.

---------- Post added 2012-02-06 at 06:43 AM ----------



A very eloquent and thoughtful post.

Except the last part trashes it. I've yet to meet or hear of a gay couple that wants to force a religious institution that is uncomfortable with gay marriage to recognize their marriage. The issue has ALWAYS been recognition in the eyes of the state.

Also, the Catholic Church (the only Christian one at the time if I recall correctly) did not mandate marriage in the church until 1215. Prior to that, no official ceremony was required, though people would often ask their preacher to bless the marriage. It was entirely a social thing, overseen by the church only at the request of the betrothed.

[Bannhammer]

Actually, marriage has been pretty much been necessary since the beginning of the Christian religion; starting with jewish law of the old testament, and continuing on into the New testament. Sooooo, marriage has been part of the Church since its inception. Second, the idea of recognition is the very subject I'm addressing. "Marriage" as a term would be done away with in legal circles. Civil Unions would be for everyone....marriages would then only be in religious circles. Its totally separate terms, and totally separate things. One for legal, one for religion. Its all semantics though. haha

[Chrysia]

Actually, marriage has been pretty much been necessary since the beginning of the Christian religion; starting with jewish law of the old testament, and continuing on into the New testament. Sooooo, marriage has been part of the Church since its inception. Second, the idea of recognition is the very subject I'm addressing. "Marriage" as a term would be done away with in legal circles. Civil Unions would be for everyone....marriages would then only be in religious circles. Its totally separate terms, and totally separate things. One for legal, one for religion. Its all semantics though. haha

Necessary, yes, but it was recognized as a social contract long before the church began regulating and controlling it. There was nobody who had to make it official until the Catholic Church decreed it in 1215. Two people who loved each other (or, more likely, whose parent's decided should be together) declared before their town that they were wed, and they were. No elaborate ceremony, no enforced blessing by anyone, just public declaration of intent.

Divorce, on the other hand, was always a messy business, but that was again a social norm, albeit one that stemmed from religion.

Also, Nordic tribes recognized marriages long before any Abrahamic religion was brought to them. It's not a religious thing, it's a societal necessity.

[Maharishi]

Personally, I don't think the government has any business in legislating marriage law at all. It should be a purely cultural institution, unfettered by the interpretation of legislators who feel the need to impose their morality on it. However, accepting that it has come under the purview of the government, disallowing gay marriage is a form of silent condemnation that I'm ashamed occurs.

[Bannhammer]

Necessary, yes, but it was recognized as a social contract long before the church began regulating and controlling it. There was nobody who had to make it official until the Catholic Church decreed it in 1215. Two people who loved each other (or, more likely, whose parent's decided should be together) declared before their town that they were wed, and they were. No elaborate ceremony, no enforced blessing by anyone, just public declaration of intent.

Divorce, on the other hand, was always a messy business, but that was again a social norm, albeit one that stemmed from religion.

Also, Nordic tribes recognized marriages long before any Abrahamic religion was brought to them. It's not a religious thing, it's a societal necessity.

I think you do marriage an injustice. Marriage has always been a big deal. It cemented ties between tribes, involved large transfers of wealth, whether through dowry and whatnot, and had to be blessed by the tribe or by the family. Yes, I will totally admit marriage is societal, but religion also is societal, and both have play into marriage. To purify marriage into a purely societal context is to also include it into religion as well. And that's the point. The word marriage is so tied up into society, and thus religion, so that for both parties to peacefully agree, both need to give up the word marriage, and settle on some other term; at least in the legal realm of affairs. Which as you so aptly pointed out earlier, is the only place it really matters.

[Peacemoon]

2012 has nothing to do with the fact men cant have kids never will or meant to have. hence sex is for reproducion only. so how do gays answer this? can u have kids with out adoption surrogcy ect?
bottom line men and women is how its meant to be and thats mother nature talking not emo kids who think being gay is normal or accepted.

By this statement I take it you have only ever had sex when you wished to conceive a child, and also wish contraception to be outlawed?

Because apparently sex for any reason other than procreation is unnatural?