What is good enough?

By asking to change the definition of marriage to include unions of 2 people the same sex.

As it stands right now, everyone has the same rights to marry someone the opposite sex. Gays want a special right to be able to marry an individual of the same sex. That would be a special right. They wish to be treated differently.

0 Replies

I don't really think that gays care what you call it.
And the dictionary has already added "same sex" to the definition of marriage so, your point of them wanting to change it is moot. It already is, by definition, changed. Just not by law.

0 Replies

Gee, according to dictionary.com

Quote:

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

So, do we use the dictionary definition? If so, which one?

0 Replies

What people continue to ignore in this debate (and which perhaps McG conveniently ignores) is that the question of terms does matter. If a state grants the right to civil union to gay couples, but not marriage, that couple is eligible only for the benefits arising from state legislation--in federal law, the couple must be married to enjoy any federal benefits.

This will only work if the terms of federal law are changed. As it stands right now, a civil union is separtate and unequal to marriage in the eyes of the federal government.

0 Replies

McGentrix--

Fine. Let's make marriage a completely religious choice.

Secularly speaking, both straights and gays could contract civil unions. If gays should be satisfied with civil unions, so should straights.

Secularly speaking, marriage is more of a custom than a right. Customs change all the time.

0 Replies

Noddy. That is what I have suggested all along. This thread was to find out if a civil union would be good enough. Apparently some pople will not be satisfied by anything.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Gee, according to dictionary.com

Quote:
mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

So, do we use the dictionary definition? If so, which one?

All of these definitions inherently mean the same thing, with different words and different contexts.
Marriage is a word; just a word. The point I am trying to make is that you can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the meaning of what happens when 2 people do it. They join together in a union.

0 Replies

And apparently, some people will continue to ignore the distinction which the federal government makes with regard to marriage.

0 Replies

Call it whatever you want. I, for one, know that it wouldn't change what my husband and I have.

Make it fair for one and fair for all.

0 Replies

As long as both gays and straights are limited to secular civil unions.

Giving straights the right to marriage and gays the right to marriage lite or civil unions is unjust.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

As long as both gays and straights are limited to secular civil unions.

Giving straights the right to marriage and gays the right to marriage lite or civil unions is unjust.

Exactly. It shouldn't matter what it's called anyway. If you have a religious ceremony you perform, you'll do it whether or not the state calls your union a marriage or a civil union.

0 Replies

If it doesn't matter, than you should have answered yes on the poll.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If it doesn't matter, than you should have answered yes on the poll.

Poll :: Would a civil union granting Homosexuals the same rights as marriage does for heterosexuals satisfy the homosexual community?

Yes, it would satisfy them to have equal rights but apparently, I misread your question. I didn't know it also implied a definition change.

Call my marriage a civil union. I don't care.

0 Replies

I'm in a hurry, so I haven't read the previous comments yet. I just wanted to point out the extremes feminists have gone to. Most feminists don't realize that they are looking for superior rights, and their opinions of themselves have surpassed equality.

I don't want to draw any parallels to gays. I just thought this would be a good opportunity to bring up my annoyance with feminists.