There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
The infamous "N" word is one.
Like it or not, words have meaning. If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well. I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed, then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I'd be perfectly fine with the courts and government agencies recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and basing benefits eligibility and legal rights on THAT status. Take the religious overtones out of the equation altogether and let's move on.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
You didn't need to explain that to me Ytown,, I knew it was about Marriage and I still don't get why the courts are involved..
And, like you, I see no reason why two guys or two gals getting married is any different than a guy and a gal getting married.
Perhaps in the eyes of the Lord (or whoever you chose to worship) there could be a difference but we're talking legal here.
IMO, if a gay or lesbian couple aren't welcomed into the church of their choosing, then it's probably better they move to a different church.. Dunno if that's an acceptable answer to some. Myself, I don't wanna be where I'm not welcome or I won't be accepted for who I am.
So I'd find like minded or open minded churches or religions.
But that's just me.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: I'd be perfectly fine with the courts and government agencies recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and basing benefits eligibility and legal rights on THAT status. Take the religious overtones out of the equation altogether and let's move on.
Hadn't thought of it that way, but yeah. I can see that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
I don't believe that words have power to hurt us. The "hurt" is something that comes from within ourselves depending on what meaning we have attached to those words. But a word is really just a thing. It holds zero power.
Quote: The infamous "N" word is one.
See above.
Quote: Like it or not, words have meaning.
Agreed, words have a definition.
Quote: If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
Have you even checked out the history of the word marriage?? "Religious" people didn't invent the word.
Quote: You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well.
See above. It's a word that works for what it is. It doesn't bother me that ALL people could use the word. Seems it only bothers those that for some reason feel threatened by something within themselves.
Quote: I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed
So now you agree that words are just words and humans do the attaching of emotions to those words?
Quote: then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
Why can't gay couples be married in religion?? You sure are putting a lot of your own restrictions on other peoples lives.
Quote: People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
Sure. It is JUST A WORD. Like I said before, we all attach our own MEANING to it. You are welcome to yours, and I am welcome to mine. And, guess what, they don't even have to be similar. But the word didn't come from the Bible as far as my research suggests...so it doesn't belong to any one group.
Quote: There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
I don't believe that words have power to hurt us. The "hurt" is something that comes from within ourselves depending on what meaning we have attached to those words. But a word is really just a thing. It holds zero power.
Quote: The infamous "N" word is one.
See above.
Quote: Like it or not, words have meaning.
Agreed, words have a definition.
Quote: If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
Have you even checked out the history of the word marriage?? "Religious" people didn't invent the word.
Quote: You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well.
See above. It's a word that works for what it is. It doesn't bother me that ALL people could use the word. Seems it only bothers those that for some reason feel threatened by something within themselves.
Quote: I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed
So now you agree that words are just words and humans do the attaching of emotions to those words?
Quote: then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
Why can't gay couples be married in religion?? You sure are putting a lot of your own restrictions on other peoples lives.
Quote: People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
Sure. It is JUST A WORD. Like I said before, we all attach our own MEANING to it. You are welcome to yours, and I am welcome to mine. And, guess what, they don't even have to be similar. But the word didn't come from the Bible as far as my research suggests...so it doesn't belong to any one group.
by Pamela Rose Williams on August 9, 2011 · The earliest use of the English word “marriage” dates back to the 13th century [1]. Marriage by God’s design is the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18). Some say that it is the ceremony (wedding) that makes the man and woman married; God’s word tells us that it is the joining of flesh that makes the marriage (Genesis 2:24). Here are twenty great Scripture quotes about marriage.
Hosea 2:19 And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. God’s Plan for Marriage
Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Meaning young woman --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roots MARRY is from Latin maritus (married), from Indo-European “root” mari (young woman). M-R for a young man of MARRIAGE age is among the oldest and most universal words known to historical linguists – see below.
נערה N[Ah'RaH (young woman - Genesis24:14). No offense, but there is a MORON/MARRIAGE connection – see MORON.
Branches MARRY is linked to Altaic miarra (marry a man), majr (man, young male) in Nostratic, mjr and mr (man) in Asiatic, and mer-io (young man) in Indo-European. A נער Na'[A]R, young man (of marriagable age – Genesis 22:12) is a nasal shift M/N away. Only the Edenic young man/young woman word explains why the AHD has feminie words, while research in other language superfamilies focus on the masculine.
MARITAL is a cognate of MARRY. The boy and girl nasal-liquid words infer a young man or woman of marriageable age. That age used to be much younger than post-graduate school age.
MAY is from Old Norse maer (girl). NA'AR(OOT) means youth. Na’[A]R means young lady, young man, older girl or boy.
Greek meirax (boy), Sanskrit marya (youth) and Latin maris (a man) are official etymons for MALE. R shifts to L. See MALE. Finnish nuore means young. Linguists working on reconstructing a proto language called Nostratic arrive at the root majr (young male). The Altaic (Japanese-Korean-Mongolian) counterpart is miarra (to marry a man), the Asiatic is mjr, mr (man).
Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions?
Well if you really need to know, I am straight.
Most of the people who are pro-gay rights also happen to be straight, mostly on the grounds that only a small minority of the population is actually gay. One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%, and most of the rest of us don't really care what consenting adults do in private, or who gets married for that matter.
Quote: So what I'm reading is you object to the use of the word, not the act in and of itself. Correct?
I believe that marriage is one man and one woman.
That being said, I see no reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to join together in an equal civil union. I believe that the fight over gay marriage has fortified their opponents, and has really impeded the ability of things like civil unions to be accepted by the general public, to the point where things like the amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which was really poorly written, are passed by large margins.
It really is proponents of gay "marriage" who are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, by pressing for a word that they say is unimportant to everyone else. If the word marriage is not important, then accept civil unions or some other legal arrangement, and allow marriage to go by the wayside. If it should be unimportant for the opponents, then why do proponents of gay marriage fight so hard for the same word?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
It's pointless. You just keep pointing fingers at everyone else. Keep on trying to dictate how others live their lives. It will make you a very happy man.
On the flip side, if allowing for the use of a synonym isn't a big deal... then why the hangup on the use of the word marriage? It MEANS the same thing.... why does the spelling matter -- except that you feel your union should be set apart from theirs?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Pretty much sums it up for me. If 30 million gay people were to get married all at once.... I can guarantee I wouldn't notice even the slightest change in my day. NOTHING. So, why in the hell should I care what they do?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Exactly. But some people think they own rights to a word, when in fact what they own is what that word means to them. I admit, it's a dumb debate...one that shouldn't even need to be had.
Am I correct in that you object to the use of the word based in part or in whole on a religious reason?
There are many religions where men are allowed multiple "wives" (including some Christian delegations). It was common place in the not too distant past.
There are also many male/female marriages that are in complete disarray and lend zero credibility to the "sanctity of marriage" arguement. How about those who have been "married" 6, 7 8 times or more? That's good for the ideal ?
There is substantial evidence that the bond of marriage was used to bind a woman to a man in the eyes of the law, not related to religion until the early 1400's.
What I'm trying to get at is that the term/verbage is debatable at best. And to use a single word to discriminate against someone is, at the least, unacceptable to me.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about.
The "fight" is about the myriad privileges and provisions afforded to couples who are legally married that, until either the legal definition of marriage includes same-sex couples or said laws that apply to married couples are also applicable to same-sex unions (regardless of term or nomenclature), set same-sex couples apart as second-class citizens in the eyes of the law.
Regardless of one's religious beliefs, if you (the royal "you", not the poster I'm replying to) believe that people ought to be treated differently on the basis of who they fall in love with then you have some serious soul-searching to do IMHO, and doubly so for those who actively seek to deny rights to them.
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I would venture to guess that people in same-sex relationships are far less concerned about how they're viewed in the eyes of the church than they are about being able to do things like file for a joint tax return, share employer benefits, enjoy spousal confidentiality privileges or make medical decisions on behalf of one another.
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Exactly. But some people think they own rights to a word, when in fact what they own is what that word means to them. I admit, it's a dumb debate...one that shouldn't even need to be had.
I agree Michelle, arguing over which word to use is just silly. Civil union, marry, what the hell ever. As long as people are receiving equal rights, who cares?
So maybe all legal marriages should be Civil Unions, basically what they are now anyways. If a church decides to "marry" gay people as a religious ceremony then that is up to them to decide. hell, there are many hetero couples who go to a justice of the peace and join in a legal marriage because their church would not approve of or condone their marriage.
My personal beliefs is that marriage is between one man, and one woman. But why would I want the government to enforce my moralitys on someone else? That's not the goverments place as long as the people aren't hurting anybody.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
This is all about people wanting their religious and moral beliefs made into law, so it can be forced on someone else. It shouldn't matter whether you believe in gays getting married or not. Your beliefs should not be forced on anyone else by our government. If you choose not to do something, and your church teaches that something is morally wrong, then fine, you live by your moral standards, and don't do it, but it is not YOUR churches right to tell everybody else what they shouldn't be allowed to do, as long as they aren't hurting anybody.
Honestly, do I think the thought of two men having sex to be disgusting? Yeah, I do. Just real talk, but there could be plenty of things that aren't my cup of tea, I wouldt expect our government to legislate rules to stop that.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Quote: One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%
I'm never quite sure where these numbers come from. From the Census? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is even higher than 10%. The question is how is it surveyed? You have people that would never fill out a form that says "Same Sex Relationship" for whatever reasons they may have.
I guess it would depend on what you call a same sex relationship.
Is somebody who is married or has a BF/GF of the opposite sex, but is in the closet and having gay relations on the down low, considered in that number.
KIng
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Quote: Is somebody who is married or has a BF/GF of the opposite sex, but is in the closet and having gay relations on the down low, considered in that number.
KIng
No, which is why it's probably higher than we think.
So maybe all legal marriages should be Civil Unions, basically what they are now anyways. If a church decides to "marry" gay people as a religious ceremony then that is up to them to decide. hell, there are many hetero couples who go to a justice of the peace and join in a legal marriage because their church would not approve of or condone their marriage.
One of the best thoughts I've read on the subject.
For the record, I support gay marriage - However, this does seem like an easy way to keep everyone happy, I would think.
The only arguments you've put forth are religious arguments, and have no standing in a country based on religious freedom. If you don't believe in gay marraige, then don't get gay married. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives is none of my business. Whether people are straight, gay, married, single, swingers, or anything else does not affect my life one bit.
I honestly don't get why people are so opposed to allowing people who love each other to do so in peace. Fortunately, the people who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history and it's only a matter of time before the US finally recognizes gay marriage as equal to the "traditional" (a loosely used term since traditional marriage was more about alliances and strengthening the power of two families). It's shameful that it's taking this long, but the end is in sight.
I think that's pretty close to the legal definition of the word.
But in my mind, Marriage can be between ANY two people that love each other and are of course, consenting adult regardless of gender.
But that's just the way I view it. I don't think Gender has a thing to do with it and I don't think you are I or the courts have a right to dig into it.
It just isn't out business.
Two people, same gender, say I do,, you wanna call it a union, I call it a marriage.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
There is an old saying that compromise is the art of the possible. There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
I think that the civil union is a solid compromise, that would allow for greater support among those who might not otherwise support gay marriage.
If it's more important to call it marriage than to have the same rights and responsibilities as couples with 1 man and 1 woman and be called something different, then oh well. It seems to me that Michelle feels that I am wrong for wanting marriage to remain what it is today, and that I am unreasonable for not wanting to change .... while she is perfectly reasonable for wanting the word for herself, and to change the meaning of the word marriage ...... even though words supposedly don't matter.
If I was in that situation, and I wanted to have a lifelong legal connection to my chosen mate, then not being able to call it marriage would not upset me all that much ..... as long as I got all of the rights and privledges that married couples do. However, the fight to have it called marriage seems to be more important ..... which is the exact mirror image of what I was accused of.
The simple fact is that this refusal to compromise is why we have a crappy amendment to the Ohio Constitution that not only prohibits gay marriage, but also any legal approximation of marriage. In other words, no marriage, and no civil unions. That's some victory there. It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result. Not only a law, but a State Constitutional Amendment, which is harder to amend/change.
(and as I have said numerous times, I was opposed to, and voter against the Constitutional Amendment)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
REALLY?!?! You don't even consider what life is like as a "minority", do you? We've been "compromising" our entire lives. And, do you seriously think that it would magically change how gay people are treated to allow them to marry? I think it could actually make hate crimes worse from those people who feel cheated somehow.
Nobody is telling YOU how to live your damned life. I couldn't care less what you do. Why do you care so much what I do? GET OUT OF MY LIFE.
Quote: ...It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result.
Is this the one you reference? From 2004?
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Quote: One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%
I'm never quite sure where these numbers come from. From the Census? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is even higher than 10%. The question is how is it surveyed? You have people that would never fill out a form that says "Same Sex Relationship" for whatever reasons they may have.
It's all too much.
Go REDS!!
First I will say that I don't know what the exact number is. Second, in effect it really shouldn't matter whether it is .2%, 2%, or 20%.
This video sums up the line of argument you're trying to make. What you are calling for is "separate but equal". How about we have just equal? I don't understand why YOU care what the union between two gay people is. It affects your life 0%. However, for gay people, it does matter because you're using the distinction between marriage/civil union to let them know that they are not equal to your heterosexual relationship.
Quote: ...It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result.
Is this the one you reference? From 2004?
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
A majority yes vote is necessary for passage."
That's the one. No marriage except for a man and a woman, and no approximation of marriage by the state or any political subdivisions ... so no cities, counties, etc.. (which means no civil unions)
It was like a nuclear bomb to gay marriage and civil unions, because it not only put a stop to both ,,, it completely eliminates the ability for anyone to Constitutionally create any type of union that in any way looks or acts like a marriage. This means that even simple and common sense things like allowing for a gay couple to care for one another with regards to medical care, certain financial matters, and so on can never happen if it is determined that they approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. That is such a broad and wide ranging expanse that almost anything could fit into that definition.
Not only that, but Ohio may not recognize a gay marriage performed in any other state ... nor may it recognize any of the benefits, such as hospital visitation, medical care, and other rights that marriage would convey in other states.
It was a badly written law, that is so broad that nothing from marriage to some sort of medical care rights for gay couples can ever be approved if it is determined that it in any way approximates any design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Almost anything could fall within that definition, and thus almost any legislation designed to make life easier for gay couples cannot be Constitutional.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I think that if I was given the choice between getting everything i wanted, except one word .... or getting nothing ...... I would give up the word and move on with those things that would seem to me to be most important.
My point about the word itself is that you deride me for wanting to protect the meaning of a word, and you say that it's only a word .... but you are unwilling to move forward without that same word that is only "just a word", because you feel that it should be "your" word.
I won't pretend to understand the struggles that you or other gay/lesbian people go through. I am quite certain that there is a heavy duty attitude of disapproval and worse ...... however, it seems to me that the way to overcome that is not by trying to figuratively shove peoples' noses in it. That is not the way to gain widespread acceptance of your right to live your life as you choose. You want to change an institution. You want to make it something it has never been before. Can't you see why there would be resistance to such a change? Really? You are a very intelligent person. I cannot believe that you can't see how it would be easier to take a step less likely to offend the religious and traditional sensibilities of a majority of people, which gay "marriage" does. (again, as proved by that idiotic amendment) In many ways, I believe this fight creates resentment from many traditionalists, and creates even more opposition and resentment. (and yes, prejudice from many)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
