Better term for gay marriage.
- Thread starter LiberalDemocraticTom
- Start date
But friends with benefits are for single people who date and have sex. Or, I'm sorry - go out and do more and be more than just "friends." :unsure:
I think the term "Gay-ly Wed locked" is better.
I think the term "Gay-ly Wed locked" is better.
But friends with benefits are for single people who date and have sex. Or, I'm sorry - go out and do more and be more than just "friends." :unsure:
I think the term "Gay-ly Wed locked" is better.
Marriage is a union between 2 or more people. This whole opposite sex thing wasn't an issue until religion decided to get involved in matters of state during the middle ages.
Still, marriage is a solid term and shouldn't be used for gay people. Marriage is commonly between men and women.
Who says? My take on the issue is really that marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call them should not be the responsibility of the government, so the government should legalize all of it and meddle in none of it. Why is marriage a legal institution? It should simply be the love between two beings who want to spend their lives together.
Another thing we agree on MYP!
Marriage is an arbitrary term, it means what we want it to mean, theres no good reason NOT to call gay people married, therefore they can call themselves married and we should consider them married.
Being Canadian this isent even an issue, we legalized gay marriage years ago.
Marriage is an arbitrary term, it means what we want it to mean, theres no good reason NOT to call gay people married, therefore they can call themselves married and we should consider them married.
Being Canadian this isent even an issue, we legalized gay marriage years ago.
A different term? What's the point? I mean, the whole idea of gay marriage was to have equality and beng the same. Inventing a new term is not going to help. Hell, it would undermine the original intention.
Gay marriage is fine. Personally, i don't even see an issue at all in regard to the genders of the couple getting married. I just call it marriage.
Well marriage is between a man and a woman, and while I'm not against gay marriage, there should be a different term.
I think giving them the right to marry is enough.
I think giving them the right to marry is enough.
But changing the term is petty and may be seen as defeating the point. They're not "married" if it isn't called marriage. I'm also concerned that Governments would capitalise on the distinction and subtly make them unequal. It's a lot more "blown open" if they go "right, opposite-sex couples that are married will get more favourable treatment". And then there can be protests about equality etc and it gets noticed.
For example, in Germany, there was the life partnership act in '01. It isn't quite on an equal par with marriage. They keep amending it. In '04 and i think sometime in '09 as well. Since it's not called marriage, people notice it.
I might point out that gay marriage has overwhelming support in Germany.
Last edited:
Dirk, in their minds and on paper, they're legally together, but by word, they're something else.
Nothing wrong with the term "marriage"
There's no need to create a different one for same-sex unions. Marriage is marriage. No need to complicate it even more. It's just a word.
There's no need to create a different one for same-sex unions. Marriage is marriage. No need to complicate it even more. It's just a word.
No, the religious might think its between a man and women, but so what?
We have gay marriage here, its called marriage and noone gets hurt *LOL*
Whats the downside to letting gays call it marriage?!
Can I ask you what gives you (or the government) the right to say who has or doesn't have the right to marry?
I don't understand why marriage can only be between a man and a woman. There is nothing in the meaning of the name that is specific about gender. Viz. this definition of marriage from Wikipedia:
The right of marriage, as with all rights, exists only by law. Marriage is a right defined by state law. The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: "Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." 28 U.S.C. ? 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g., In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004). However, as more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the "back door" to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
This is meant in a totally non-sodomic sense, however I wonder if they keep on going down this road where they have to define/acknowledge the partners in a marriage, whether marriage to non-humans would be allowed as well. For example some people attach a lot of value to their animals, so perhaps their animals could inherit wealth, and probably need to be taxed as well? I am back to my original point, marriage as a legal entity should be scrapped. It has become redundant and has become more of a vehicle to get acknowledgment and tolerance for people who are different, than real focus on marriage. If people want public acknowledgement they don't need a special paper for it from Government, partners should be treated as separate legal entities. If they still feel they want some piece of paper or contract for sharing their lives, they could go to a lawyer for a legal contract. The Government should not be involved in defining what marriage and what the marriage partners' definition should be.
Whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, they are quick to complain: "There ought?a be a law . . . ." Well, the truth is that there is. There is nothing that we do in this life that is not subject to law. Marriage is no different. The marriage laws both grant rights and impose duties and responsibilities that are not just necessary but essential, for it is only the sanction of the law that keeps things in line. Get used to it.
Well there is certainly no law that says one has to get married. And since marriage is not as firm as it used to be up to a few decades ago, maybe the Government needs to let go of marriage and treat all people over X years in their own right. Why do they have to have people grouped in two's any way, if it is two, why not three or four, or preferably no grouping?
Similar threads
