Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[waitasec]

i respect yu intrepatation of it i have no influens on soceity sorry if you not respect my opinon that its wrong
im voting to support it but think wrong so it o.k.

yes you do...


it's this mentality that perpetuates injustice.


ideas change when there are exchanges of ideas

 

[darkendless]

Why do gay opponents have such an issue with how others conduct their lives?

Serious question, it bothers me that people get up in arms over homosexual marriage as the next Hitler when it has absolutely nothing to do with them and certainly wouldn't interupt their everyday lives.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

well i thiink god made adam and eve and not adam and steve but relly i think religon and gov is not in the same family. its o.k. to be gay i have gay frends i like for who peple are not what they are

When did Adam and Eve actually get married in Genesis? I must have missed that part. When was the ceremony held?

 

[blackout]

When did Adam and Eve actually get married in Genesis? I must have missed that part. When was the ceremony held?

There was no 'pastor' to 'marry' them, and
There certainly were no govt. documents.

Marriage is and isn't so many things to so many people.


There is no such thing as traditional marriage.
(only traditional marriage as people - choose to - imagine, or envision it)

 

[blackout]

Why do gay opponents have such an issue with how others conduct their lives?

Serious question, it bothers me that people get up in arms over homosexual marriage as the next Hitler when it has absolutely nothing to do with them and certainly wouldn't interupt their everyday lives.

All too many people don't know how to live and let live.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There was no 'pastor' to 'marry' them, and
There certainly were no govt. documents.

Marriage is and isn't so many things to so many people.


There is no such thing as traditional marriage.
(only traditional marriage as people - choose to - imagine, or envision it)

And no tax break! Heehee!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why do gay opponents have such an issue with how others conduct their lives?

Serious question, it bothers me that people get up in arms over homosexual marriage as the next Hitler when it has absolutely nothing to do with them and certainly wouldn't interupt their everyday lives.

If I may (not an opponent, but just throwing in what I see)...

I think homosexual relationships are seen like a poisoning of the social foundations of a few things. The first I can think of is the "assault" on the nuclear family unit as a picture, that culturally and politico-religiously (I think I made that term up), we idealize the mom, dad, 2.3 kids, white picket fence scenario as not a norm but THE family arrangement all should strive for. There is a small but notable portion of shaming to people who wish to remain single or divorced, couples who wish to remain childless, and families that choose to live in an RV and refuse to establish "roots" somewhere. I've even found a portion of shaming on families that choose willingly to have multiple generations in the same house, that aging parents who want to live with the grandkids are seen as "too attached" and not giving the parents their own space.

Grandparents are at times speaking up about their rights to protecting and raising the children and usually are met with a lot of backlash.

The second thing I see in the opponents pov is that homosexual relationships also are squarely opposed to patriarchal designs for male power and control. In a heterosexual relationship, it's easy for society to assume who is leading the pair and asserts it's relationship with "head of household". But with homosexual relationships, it comes off as mass confusion as it tries to answer the question, "Who's in charge?" It literally forces us all to see egalitarianism as the baseline for finance, family, and specifically love.

Finally, most of us are quite used to the war of the sexes. "She screwed me over." "Well, he screwed me worse." We're a culture that is filled with people who saturate themselves in the victim role, and love to rant about how we can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. We love to complain about being stuck in our relationships but cite the "nature" argument that trying to live without the other is supposed to be worse than trying to live with them. Homosexual relationships puts a mirror to our faces and effectively tells us to shut the **** up and stop blaming the other...he/she is just as human as you.

I may be wrong, but it's worth a shot to try on their shoes and walk a mile.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do gay opponents have such an issue with how others conduct their lives?

It's human nature to mind other people's bizness. I'll wager that most gay proponents
would also like to regulate how others conduct their lives in some way, eg....
- prostitution
- minimum wage
- human organ sale
- abortion
- assisted suicide
- working hours

 

[waitasec]

If I may (not an opponent, but just throwing in what I see)...

I think homosexual relationships are seen like a poisoning of the social foundations of a few things. The first I can think of is the "assault" on the nuclear family unit as a picture, that culturally and politico-religiously (I think I made that term up), we idealize the mom, dad, 2.3 kids, white picket fence scenario as not a norm but THE family arrangement all should strive for. There is a small but notable portion of shaming to people who wish to remain single or divorced, couples who wish to remain childless, and families that choose to live in an RV and refuse to establish "roots" somewhere. I've even found a portion of shaming on families that choose willingly to have multiple generations in the same house, that aging parents who want to live with the grandkids are seen as "too attached" and not giving the parents their own space.

Grandparents are at times speaking up about their rights to protecting and raising the children and usually are met with a lot of backlash.

The second thing I see in the opponents pov is that homosexual relationships also are squarely opposed to patriarchal designs for male power and control. In a heterosexual relationship, it's easy for society to assume who is leading the pair and asserts it's relationship with "head of household". But with homosexual relationships, it comes off as mass confusion as it tries to answer the question, "Who's in charge?" It literally forces us all to see egalitarianism as the baseline for finance, family, and specifically love.

Finally, most of us are quite used to the war of the sexes. "She screwed me over." "Well, he screwed me worse." We're a culture that is filled with people who saturate themselves in the victim role, and love to rant about how we can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. We love to complain about being stuck in our relationships but cite the "nature" argument that trying to live without the other is supposed to be worse than trying to live with them. Homosexual relationships puts a mirror to our faces and effectively tells us to shut the **** up and stop blaming the other...he/she is just as human as you.

I may be wrong, but it's worth a shot to try on their shoes and walk a mile.

i agree with this.

i would also like to add that that a significant amount of the culturally and politico-religious would view on "giving in" by accepting the homosexuals into society...their god will send a meteorite to punish all who live in that part of the world.

why else was there a haitian earthquake
or the tsunami in japan
and even hurricane katrina?

these were all were godless people

 

[Road Warrior]

these were all were godless people

They were all atheists?

 

[Duck]

Courious as to way allowing the same thing but giving it 2 labels is a bad idea.

Seperation of church and state.
Church has the right to declare marriage any way they want. Their Sanctity (implies whatever the religion wishes to designate it.)

State Civil Union. If you wish to get all the state benefits and rights you must have a civil union.

Now Religions have marriage but its not recognised by the state.

The state allows all peoples civil unions and gives them the benefits associated with them.

Are we really that hung up on the word. We need to have marriage or else nothing. That sounds kinda ignorant.

Yeah, that currently is being tried in New Jersey and Illinois.

In Illinois, where civil unions are technically the equivalent of marriage, people in civil unions have reported that they have had problems dropping off prescriptions at the pharmacy for their spouse and have reported being denied services by individuals and institutions that claim civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. In New Jersey, a government mandated study of their civil union law indicated that it was entirely inadequate and NOT the equivalent of marriage as was required by both the courts and legislative action.

So, tell me, which water fountain should I drink out of?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah, that currently is being tried in New Jersey and Illinois.

In Illinois, where civil unions are technically the equivalent of marriage, people in civil unions have reported that they have had problems dropping off prescriptions at the pharmacy for their spouse and have reported being denied services by individuals and institutions that claim civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. In New Jersey, a government mandated study of their civil union law indicated that it was entirely inadequate and NOT the equivalent of marriage as was required by both the courts and legislative action.

So, tell me, which water fountain should I drink out of?

Yep. I live in Illinois. Still seeking marriage equality.

What I find ignorant is feeling entitled over ownership of a word. The government grants marriage licenses to atheists, so it can't be considered "sacred" territory. Nope...I only see a deeply rooted homophobia coming from the crowd against same sex marriage.

 

[waitasec]

Yep. I live in Illinois. Still seeking marriage equality.

What I find ignorant is feeling entitled over ownership of a word. The government grants marriage licenses to atheists, so it can't be considered "sacred" territory. Nope...I only see a deeply rooted homophobia coming from the crowd against same sex marriage.

that statement is just ooozing with truth, as ugly as it may be...

 

[rober07]

when a girl moves in, there is no reason to commit to marriage, there's no incentive. according to man.
Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.

 

[waitasec]

when a girl moves in, there is no reason to commit to marriage, there's no incentive. according to man.
Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.

huh?

you are leaving out the other half of the equation

 

[Sunstone]

Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.

And yet, the same attitude towards marriage does not always hold true among women in the world's very few matriarchal societies.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

when a girl moves in, there is no reason to commit to marriage, there's no incentive. according to man.
Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.

Part and parcel of a woman's life? Says who?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yep. I live in Illinois. Still seeking marriage equality.

What I find ignorant is feeling entitled over ownership of a word. The government grants marriage licenses to atheists, so it can't be considered "sacred" territory. Nope...I only see a deeply rooted homophobia coming from the crowd against same sex marriage.

From what I can see,the word was created to define the relationship of a man and woman who make a lifelong commitment to each other. This is a case of homosexuals envying something that married couples have and wanting it for themselves.

 

[Me Myself]

From what I can see,the word was created to define the relationship of a man and woman who make a lifelong commitment to each other. This is a case of homosexuals envying something that married couples have and wanting it for themselves.

I wonder if it is the other way around with you and this discussion...

I wonder if people that argue only heterosexual couples should marriage just envy people in general that marry for deeper and more intimate reasons than just because they want to have sex (only can in marriage ) or just because they want kids or some other silly thing like that.

The very OP makes me think of this.

Why do you feel so treathened by homosexuals marrying? because my hypothesis would answer that. I donpt find other posible answer and I´ve seen a lot of posts in this thread not one reallly answering such.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

From what I can see,the word was created to define the relationship of a man and woman who make a lifelong commitment to each other. This is a case of homosexuals envying something that married couples have and wanting it for themselves.

Marriage has meant many things in many different cultures, from same-sex, to polygyny, to arranged marriages, to group marriages....and for intents and purposes ranging from sexual monogamy, assurance of paternal lineage, to property ownership and inheritances.

For centuries and across many cultures, dowries existed right alongside bride price practices, where this was "seed money" either given to or paid by the groom in order to value his investment in lineage and/or property. In other words, traditionally across cultures for centures, women were property. It used to be argued 100 some odd years ago at the dawn of women's suffrage that a woman who voted was only envious of what is "naturally" a man's entitlement and right.

Personally, I'm happy to see that women overwhelmingly now are considered to have voting rights, property ownership, the right to file for divorce without severe social stigmas against her, and have the opportunity to work outside the home and run for political office. The idea of women being property is gone for the most part, but we still have a ways to go with the backlash of current stigmas (e.g. ****-shaming).

Same sex marriage has been instituted many times before in various cultures without their society ripping apart at the seams. It's been defined and redefined many many times in the past, and it can survive another evolution from heterosexual monopoly of the word to include homosexual unions.