Just go go along with the thread

I vote 'no' because I think it will corrupt our youth and turn them into rapists, child molesters or (gasp!) other gay people!

Not only that but men might spurn their wives in favour of "attractive livestock", and our cities will turn into Soddom and Gomorrah - which God will wrinkle his nose at, and promptly turn to dust.

Defense of marriage? From whom? I think it's the heterosexuals who have debased marriage. If gays want to make a lifelong monogamous commitment, I don't see how they can harm the institution of marriage any worse than it's already been harmed by those who don't take it seriously. Who are we to tell them they need to be promiscuous instead of settling down?

EXACTLY what I was thinking!

arrrghhhh I do not think i have te strength

Don't you post in the ME/NA forum? This should be a breeze!

(Just kidding with you...your post here made me giggle!)





:applause:

You'd think! right?



Thanks for making me laugh this morning!

Are you serious with this comment? I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and hoping you are joking.

Satire.

in the great tradition of Jonathan Swift. Hungry? eat a child. Forget fiber, we all need a little for satire in our diet.

I wrote a great piece of satire on apartheid back in the 80's (if I may blow my own horn). It was my first attempt and it earned me an A and a love of the genre.

Marry the same sex, marry a horse, marry a giraffe...hell I don't care!

Who's place is it to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry? Certainly not mine.

Hum… this is a fairly non-representational group you are polling with this question.

Everyone in this forum has an intended spouse or spouse with *United States Government Approved* genitalia. Otherwise we would have been refused even the chance to apply.

Perhaps we could hear from the millions of Americans who are deprived of their basic human right to marry by runing a concurrent poll on a forum called say… "VisaNot4u.com, our dream of family immigration denied by bigotry community"?

I think it would be interesting to hear from a greater number myself.

However, can we call the site "NoVisaJourneyforyou,don'tcomebackoneyear.com"?

My brother is gay and it makes me angry that if he should ever desire to do so, he couldn't enter into marriage with his partner. My opionion is that marriage is a lifelong commitment to each other and it shouldn't matter if the person you choose to marry is the same sex as you or not. What if there was a ban in the United States barring us from marrying anyone outside of the United States? I know it is not much of a comparison, but it kind of puts it into perspective a bit.

I voted "yes but don't call it marriage". Only because I think churches/places of religious worship should be in charge of the marriage business, and they should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriages. I would be perfectly happy if my "marriage" was instead called a "civil union", doesn't make a difference to me. My marriage doesn't have religious meaning for me. If those who are religious want to protect the definition of marriage, then by all means, let it be protected. People should be free to choose religious communities that prohibit gay marriage if they want.

I don't get why people can be so against gay marriage.

Religious people aren't going to go to hell because others are gay so why does it matter to them?

Wait, maybe they are going to go to hell if other people are gay. Good! I'll see ya there!

marriage is a religious term and that should be the end of it. there is no reason why only gay couples should be able to get a civil union though. i would like one! I am not religious and would even go so far to say I am an atheist. why should I have to get *married*?

i am curious if opposite-sex couples would be able to apply for civil union licenses in states that approve or would we be turned away because we are not same-sex?

I agree completely. I want a civil union too.

That made me laugh too! Every 4 months or so this poll comes up on VJ. It is interesting to see what the newest members of our group think.

As for me...If you love and wish to commit them please...GET MARRIED!!!!



I think I would agree to that as well. Maybe I should change my marriage into a civil union!

Yeah, I always wanted a civil union. What the he!l is this crap about having marriage as a legal term? A little too much Church in my State. Let's make all unions civil unions and marriage is something you do in church.

Bravo

Why is it non representational? We are people...many who vote. I don't think you have to be gay to have a voice on this topic.

My husband and I were married by a federal judge... do we have a marriage or a civil union?????

There was no mention of religion in our wedding...

you are married if you obtained a marriage license in order to register your marriage. civil unions are not federally recognized much less by one state to another, so its pretty much a moot point until the federal law can change. if this was the case i would have applied for a civil union license vs our stinky marriage license.

The argument is that marriage is a religious term, therein lies the problem, not whether religion is mentioned in your ceremony.

I voted no. If it was legal than it would take so much longer to get our loved ones here. Then we would have to wait in line for immigration applications to be approved. Aproving the gays and the straights. What a mess that would be.

lol what? you want to deny a whole section of people equal rights simply because you don't want anyone else in LINE through USCIS?

I don't really care. We have enough immoral problems in this country the way it is. Why not add something else?

Why would it be a mess? Because we would all have equal rights? That's disgusting!

I hope you weren't serious with that you wrote.

i dont care if they marry.

Yes, yes, yes! Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. And to bring their spouses to the US. (And I am against any non-marriage partner visas—which is one of the reasons I think gay couples should be allowed to marry.) (ETA: *IF* gay couples cannot marry, I am for non-marriage partner visas for them. However, I would prefer it many times over that they be allowed to marry and go through the same processes as heterosexual couples.)

I would be willing to accept as an alternative the law's being changed so that the government allowed only civil unions and all rights currently associated with marriage were granted on the basis of civil unions, and marriage ceremonies would not be legally recognized but could be performed (or not) by religious organizations.

I would be willing to accept this change because I think it would be easier for people to accept. Personally, my definition of marriage does not (and never has) included the gender of the people involved, since the time my mother first said "Marriage is when two people who love each other very much decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together." (And no, my mother is not a lesbian. She and my father have been married for 32 years.) So I have no problem whatsoever with "marriage" including people of the same sex. But I know some people can't get over the idea that marriage must be between a man and a woman, so I would be okay with taking "marriage" away from the government, letting religious organizations have it, and have the government base everything on "civil unions" instead.

~Bethany
(Damn proud to be from New Jersey)

cristy,

Chose "I don't know" when I couldn't find "I don't care" among the choices.

Yodrak

Yes

yes

I believe they should be allowed to marry or at the very least have civil unions. My uncles have been together for twenty years now. That's longer than a lot of married people. They're allowed to claim each other on health insurance in the state they live in, which helped a lot last year when my non-related uncle had heart trouble had had to have serious surgery. He hasn't been able to work since and it helps them cover the bills.

I love my uncles, regardless of their sexual practices. They are family.

Why do you think religious leaders should "be in charge of the marriage business"? Do you believe that marriage is a "business"?



How do you figure "marriage" to be a religious term?

From the OED:

[< Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French, French mariage (1135 in sense 1, c1165 in sense 3, 1588 in sense 5a, 1643 in sense 2, 1840 in sense 5b, but already in 1534 used to denote a card game) < marier MARRY v. + -age -AGE. The English word has evidently been apprehended from the outset as though a derivative of MARRY v., as suggested by the much earlier attestation in English in sense 2 than in French. Cf. Old Occitan maridatge (13th cent.), Italian maritaggio (13th cent.), Spanish maridaje (early 17th cent.); Portuguese has a different formation, maridança (15th cent.).
With senses 3 and 6 cf. also MARITAGE n.
In current usage, MARRIAGE n. and WEDDING n. are both applied to the marriage ceremony and attendant festivities (sense 2b below), though the present word is generally restricted to more formal registers (except in Scots and Indian English). Note, however, that WEDDING n. is not applied to the state of matrimony (sense 1), so that the two nouns are sometimes used contrastively, e.g.:
1992 D. MADDEN Remembering Light & Stone viii. 79 It was like taking a wedding at face value and confusing it with the marriage to come.
Compounds containing MARRIAGE n. in the sense ‘nuptials’ (e.g. marriage bell, day, dress, etc.) are still attested, though more rarely than corresponding compounds in WEDDING n. Cf. WED v., MARRY v., and note s.v.]

I. Simple uses.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

b. in marriage: in or into wedlock (now arch.). to give (also conjoin, join, take) in (also to, into) marriage: to give (join, etc.) as husband or wife. but marriage: unmarried (Sc. Obs.).

c. A vow or contract of marriage. Chiefly in to break (also keep) one's marriage. Obs.

d. A particular instance of matrimony between a husband and wife; a matrimonial alliance.

e. With modifying word, as group, communal, etc.: a system understood to exist in some cultures, religious groups, etc., by which each of the men in a small community is regarded as married to each of the women. Cf. plural marriage s.v. PLURAL a.

2. a. The action, or an act, of getting married; the procedure by which two people become husband and wife.

b. A wedding ceremony; wedding festivities. Now chiefly Sc. and S. Asian.

c. In phrases denoting the means or custom by which a spouse is acquired, as marriage by capture, marriage by exchange, marriage by purchase.

3. A dowry (in quot. 1465, that given by a father for his son). Cf. MARITAGE n. 2. Obs.

4. A person viewed as a prospective husband or wife; a (good or bad) match. Also: a spouse (rare). Obs.

5. fig. and in extended use. a. An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things.

b. Cards. In bezique, pinochle, and related games: the holding of a king and queen of the same suit in a hand, which scores points when declared. Cf. MARRY v. 11.

c. (An act of) industrial or commercial union; a merger.

d. An antique assembled from components differing in provenance, date, etc.; the assembling of such an object. Cf. MARRIED a. 2c.

6. Feudal Law. = MARITAGE n. 3. Obs. (hist. in later use).

Yes

yes

If someone tells you to mind your own business do you respond, "But I don't run a business!"?

I'm talking about an affair or matter, not a commercial enterprise.

Fair enough. I'm still interested in your response to my first question though.

simple definition (while I apreciate the exhaustive definition you provided) the mutual relation of husband and wife

this to me is certainly not secular. so the question is, how did it get defined so specifically as man & woman? tell me how today why can't the definition be changed to accommodate man & man or woman & woman? to me it seems rediculously obvious that the only reason it is stayiing put is because it is deemed a sacred union by religions (which certainly do not ascribe homosexual relationships as valid and to go so far as to say sinful).

to me, it seems this is how it began, and how it continues. the TERM marriage is MARRIED to religion.

I'm female, married to a man, and we are far from being "married to religion". I'm also far from being well-read in all the world religions, but this whole "union of man and woman" thing mainly stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which happens to be pretty popular in America but is not the belief of everyone else in the world.

As for how it was defined so specifically as man and woman... it wasn't. There are many definitions of "marriage" and that is just one of the many. But let's say it is THE definition... why? Because it is the norm, the most popular, the most common. Most of the world's population is heterosexual because of evolution... we needed to pass on our genes and continue our species. That's before artificial insemination and such came along, but hey, why do we still have wisdom teeth when our diet's changed over the years?

In any case, I'm saddened to witness so many gay and lesbian couples denied their right to marry all because of differing opinions on how to define an English word. I'm glad gay marriage is legal where I'm from

I voted yes, and I'm a very firm believer in this.

I really hope this was said in jest, re: above. I work as a therapist with sexual offenders, and have done so for 25 years. With MY experience and knowledge, I can assure you, that over 98% of rapists and child molesters are HETEROSEXUAL males. When are people going to stop believing this myth about gay people molesting children???

I don't see more problems when people of the same sex love each other than when people of opposite sexes do. It's all about the people themselves, and about love.

You're making a mistake here, the word "marriage" does not have religious connotations necessarily. The Christian Conservatives who are against gay marraige want you to think marriage is a religious ceremony only, as a way to justify not allowing gays to marry. If you look in the dictionary for the word marriage you'll find that marriage is the union of two people* , recognised by law. Marriage is a legal term for a civil union, the church has nothing to do with it. Hence why non-religious people such as justices can perform marriages.

*depending on what dictionary it will say opposite sex, but my Mac's built in Dictionary recognizes gay marriage!

I was making the distinction myself! If the Christian Conservatives want to get their undies in a bundle about the word "marriage," I'd prefer to let them have it for churches and religious settings only. Let's have "unions" be the only possible legal option, and no difference between a union and a marriage in the eyes of the law.

PS If only the Mac dictionary had some say in U.S. domestic policy.

Yeah, I didn't really understand why. Marriage in this country is secular and defined by law, not the church.

BTW there are plenty of churches that have no problem with gay marriage, so making it "religious only" won't stop gay marriages from happening in churches.