Same Sex Marrriage

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who cares what other people do as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Making civil union and marriage the same thing doesn't directly affect the individual that thinks it is immoral.

The day that it's ratified people of the same sex aren't going to start instantly asking them if they want to be married. They aren't going to be forced to marry the same gender. They still have choice. So what's the problem here?

It's inconsequential. Let them do as they like. Nobody is being hurt here. There are far more important things in the world to think about.

Like what you all are going to buy me for Christmas.
 


No, same sex marriage is disgraceful. It would not long last forever most of the time. These type of marriages are conducted due to lust and not because of love.
 

How so, does both or one of the partner did something criminal that is worth the disgrace, or is it just your opinion?


As if opposite sex marriage are forever.


How many opposite sex couple rush to a chapel to get marry after a vacation holiday full of steamy sex? Countless.

Welcome to the 21st century.
 

That is what I would describe as when a person's believe disable another person's right. People have their right to get married? Yes. People have their right to choose to believe in a religion? Yes. So what happen to the religious side when same sex couple exercise their right to get marry? Nothing, religious people can still believe it is wrong. It is freedom of expression that you can have different opinion. But having the right for an opinion does not make it a correct idea nor does it mean it is so important that it can violate other people's right. Same idea I am trying to get through to mubin in the muslim thread.
 



Call it Civil Union. Same rights as the title "marriage" without calling it marriage?
 

Political and personal gain by unanimous support from a large group of people via manipulative brain control. There needs to be a social change. The only way is to education people to form their own opinion with a multi-perspective analysis of the current society, drawing in arguments from multiple view point, critically analyse on whether the arguments are validated and use diverse range of trusted resource instead of relying on a handful of text with the same opinion for information. When they think deeper and question the "moral value", they will be shocked to discover how little relevance some people's marital status affects their lives, when the constant influence of "moral value" is out of their head.

The situation is, I think, not unlike black right activist fighting for black right. A society with a majority unfavourable opinion on a minority group of people, where the fundamental right of the minority is taken away because it is against the view of the majority and contradiction displease them.
 

If same sex marriage is given protected status as a normal marriage, then why name it differently. Seems like discrimination to me. Like people, if you recognise them as people, then why give a special word for it (e.g. negro)? I don't meant t offend people, I am just pointing out the seriousness of the problem. You call them people of (whatever cultural or racial) background, if you really need to describe them, e.g. black people or more politely, people of African American background. I think marriage should also follow the same convention, (description of the couple pairing) marriage, e.g. opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage.

May be the society is not quite ready yet.
 


Tell them that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

Passing a gay marriage law doesn't affect those staunch defenders of straight marriage.

Not like we'll make them marry the same sex.

😛
 



I agree that it is silly to have to call it something differently.. however, if the ultimate goal is for same sex couples to be granted rights equivalent to traditional couples, does the name really matter? Are these individuals fighting for the right to have a piece of paper say "Marriage" instead of "Civil Union" or are they fighting the the ability to be recognized as a couple under the state with the same rights as traditional couples?

At the end of the day if the state recognizes the joining of the individuals and grants them all of the rights that they would otherwise be entitled to I don't see the loss. The couple can call it a marriage if they want, no one can stop them. The couple can have a marriage ceremony if they want, no one can stop that either so long as the joining is recognized by the state, regardless of terminology.

It seems fickle to insist on being granted the title.. if you're in it for love title doesn't mean squat. You get treated just as anyone other couple by the state and that's what you should be aiming for. If the easiest way to attain that is to say "Fine, you keep your title, I'll take mine," I don't see that as a loss.
 
The naming convention, apart from being a form of legal recognition, is also an indication of social acceptance and social change. Imagine if black people have the same rights and status as the majority, but are still constantly called by the society as negro.
 


"Will you civil union me" doesn't sound very catchy.
 
I agree with you completely on this.
 
They want more pity than the ordinary couples and amplify to much also.
 
I think they just want the same things the rest of us do: equality, respect, and ability to fit in with the rest of us.

The issue with marriage is that it is historically tied up with religious conventions as well as the legal framework in terms of sucession and entitlements when a spouse dies ... and when the relatives get.

Seting the "man and woman in the eyes of god thing aside, many countries do not recognise that a partner of a same sex couple is entitled to the same things legally - goods and chattels in the event of death etc.

 
I know Canada where I use to live recognizes this and also common-law as legal.
 
I believe that our foreparents in the United States made a huge mistake by calling a legal union "marriage." Leave marriage to the religious institutions. Make all civil unions, straight and gay, church-approved, church-ignored, and theologically damned. a separate entity. Give it a new name. "Puffle." Puffle can be defined legally and changed as society progresses. A church marriage, as long as it conforms to the rules of puffle, can be considered enough to establish puffle or not, as we wish. But two people can be puffled without any religious approval. No puffle for groups of more than two (for now, at least), no puffle for minors, both parties must be human beings.

Bingo. No religious institution can claim that the government is forcing them to approve marriage between people of the same sex, or different skin color, or a Republican and a Democrat. The happy couple goes and gets puffled, ignoring the local church, synagogue, mosque, ashram, sweat lodge, whatever.

Legal benefits now assigned to marriage will be switched to puffle. Joint tax returns, hospital visits, inheritance. The church is no longer involved in any judgment on the granting of these social and legal rights. And the church may still be outraged by gay puffle, but at least it isn't forced to recognize these as marriage. But it won't matter to the puffled, unless it is the church of their belief.

France has a separate civil ceremony that must be performed even if a couple is married by a religious officiant. Smart.

EDIT: I didn't see Crush3d's post before I typed. Much more succinct than mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom