Or you need to move to Georgia.

/sarcasm

 

So you agree. If people want change in the government system, they should talk to their reps.


The truth is out there

 

Thank you for your kind thoughts. The ceremony was beautiful.
Perhaps I did misinterpret what you were saying but what I read was:

"If you want to get married, it should be in a church. If you want the governing authorities to recognize a union between two or more beings it should be something separate.

A man and a woman getting married should have to do both, go to church (or wherever you worship)"

"They will know the idea of marriage is for religious ceremonies"

I took away from that that you want to hijack the word "marriage" and reserve it's use to religious rites. That is a very narrow point of view defined to make a particular group feel special. The definition of "marriage" is, quickly from Wikipedia:

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).

Ultimately, The state has emerged as the institution that determines who has the authority to marry people, and what pairing will or will not be recognized. That covers almost ANY “religious” group, ship captains, and Elvis impersonators in Vegas (although who knows if they’re ordained in some religion). I don’t think it should matter who does the ceremony or where it takes place as long as it’s legally binding. The word “marriage” will continue to be used in all instances because it’s synonymous with legal contract and all people understand that.
Redundant terms that essentially mean the same thing only makes things murky.






.

 

Marriage has legal rights and ramifications that have already been defined and established. Calling a union something else would require those under the new classification to fight for those rights all over again.


Saying Stuff and Thangs

 

No problem. This is a touchy subject for sure. I'm not a religious person and my idea is more to just get people to move on and let the religious people stop trying to pass marriage amendments.

++++++++
"If you want to get married, it should be in a church. If you want the governing authorities to recognize a union between two or more beings it should be something separate.

A man and a woman getting married should have to do both, go to church (or wherever you worship)"
+++++++++

What I'm trying to say there is:

Marriage, Church, Ceremonies, Religion. These go together.

Civil Union, Visitation Rights, Parental Rights, Tax Rights, Property Rights, etc. These go together.

I was actually curious about when it started to change and it seems around the 1990's dictionaries started reworking the definition, but for the last 600 years or so it was defined somewhat differently.

Headline from Business Insider 2013:
The Oxford Dictionary Is Changing The Definition Of 'Marriage' To Include Gay Couples
https://www.businessinsider.com/oxford-dictionary-re-defining-marriage-2013-7

Heck getting married by the judge wasn't even really a thing beyond the past 100 years or so.

The definition you cite is a very modern definition. I have no idea how old you are but I'm hitting 50 so I grew up in the 70's/80's. If you asked anyone on the street to define marriage I am strongly confident that they wouldn't not come close to the definition you cited.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm certainly open to discussion about it and it's not really a passionate issue for me one way or another. I'd never support a law to ban non traditional marriages and I don't think the sky will fall if things continue on as they are. It just seems the whole same-sex marriage thing is more like wanting to give a big FU to society. Geeze straight people barely want to get married anymore.

 

Yes it would. And therefore what?

 

This expectation irritates the hell out of me. One person is not plural. We already have a non-gendered pronoun and tough luck if the entitled bossy ruler of the universe doesn't like it. I understand "it" would sound asexual, and thus possibly be inappropriate/insulting, but "they" and "them" are also inapt. I don't mind validating the person's personal experience, but I wouldn't torture English to do it. I wouldn't mind using the actual name over and over. A compound he-she or some other brand new pronoun would be fine, too. Maybe we could enrich English by adopting a new pronoun from some other language.

 

Therefore it would be a pointless waste of time when hundreds of years of legislation have already been established and any future changes would have to be fought for both classifications instead of just adding it to the already existing set of standards.


Saying Stuff and Thangs

 

That's all well and good but if something is right it's right. If it's wrong it's wrong. How hard something will take to enact is irrelevant to the idea of it.

 

The idea wasn’t if it was right or wrong. The idea was that was if it is ok as long as its called something besides marriage. Calling a civil union something besides marriage doesn’t solve anything. It just opens another can of worms. The idea is that it would NOT something different. Interracial marriage was not acceptable for a long time. They didn’t make a whole new classification for that circumstance. They clarified that people of any race could marry with the same rights and responsibilities as any other marriage. Its like saying butterscotch ice cream shouldn’t be called ice cream shouldn’t be called ice cream because i don’t like with butterscotch and it cheapens the word ice cream. There are many flavors of ice cream, you might not like them all but they still ARE ice cream. You have the right to not eat butterscotch but getting all hot and bothered of someone calling it ice cream seems pointless unless its trying to prevent butterscotch from even being an option.


Saying Stuff and Thangs

 

Interracial marriage is not a good comparison at all. It barred a man and woman of different races from getting married. No law prevents a gay man from marrying a woman.

 

Interracial marriages had to fight the same fight to become legally married at one time. It just happened a lot sooner then gay marriage.
It’s a perfect example.



The truth is out there

 

So the quality they share is something that is fought for? Well then you've just proven that gay marriage is the same thing as incest, polygamy and MAMBLA type relationships as these are also things some people fight for.

(I am NOT comparing these things just illustrating an example!!!!!!)

 

How does fighting for equal rights equate to incest?


The truth is out there

 

He's equating anything that is fought for. He's not saying that all things that are fought for deserve to become successful fights.

 

I’d like to know who the hell is fighting to legalize incest? Seriously?

 

Each of those would have to be debated independently. What is MAMBLA? I dont want to google it and start getting weird ads.


Saying Stuff and Thangs

 

Ya lost me there. Now you’re trying to place some sort of moral equivalency between a marriage performed and/or recognized by the state vs one by the church which brings up some interesting points concerning polygamy.

Although small pockets of immigrants may have practiced this in the US, it came to the forefront when the Mormon church declared it to be one of it’s doctrines. This put it squarely in opposition to federal laws against bigamy. The government squashed that idea so flat that the church had to formally reject it in 1890 which is the only way Utah could obtain statehood, after several petitions had been voted down for various reasons but plural marriage being it’s major obstacle.

There have been renegade bands of Mormons who continue to practice this and they have created many ways to get around the legality of such. I read for instance that they would marry one woman then divorce her. She could continue to use her married name and then he would marry wife #2, wash, rinse and repeat. All the time the divorced wives would continue to live with the man. Legally though he would only have one wife at a time. It’s also notable than many of these secondary wives are under age girls. Some men have been prosecuted and convicted but it’s hard to root out due to it’s secretaive nature.

You’re going to tell me that this is more morally acceptable than two men or women, legally married civilly, or by a church(some religions will marry same sex couples)? What are you even talking about? It’s my opinion that the government made the right call. You asked me about my age. I’m at least 15+ years your senior. Open your eyes. The world is changing around us. When the change is for the better, when it supports equality, rights past wrongs, makes life easier for those who need help or when it does no real harm, don’t fight the flow. There are plenty of things that are changing for the worse that should take up your time and energy. Unless you can say how you are personally effected negatively by all this, it’s a straw man ....or you like playing devil’s advocate, lol, and that’s ok too. These are debate threads. Rant all you want. We all do.

 

I’m so happy I’m not the only one who didn’t know what this was.

 

I don't even really wanna say it but it's a group who does lobby and they are kinda gross.