Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

The importance of the word marriage. Options · View
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:27:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Is it just me or has someone, somewhere, missed something during this whole battle for gay marriage?

A civil partnership is a ridiculous substitute for marriage because the word is both cold and mechanical. This is what bugs me about all of this nonsense; the word marriage connotes this warm, romantic scene while the term civil partnership sounds like a seedy contract. Am I the only one who feels like, despite the fact that each of these terms come with the same result, it is harder to be excited when someone says "I'm having a civil partnership" rather than when someone says "I’m getting married."

Maybe, I'm just a little mad but the emotion, the history and the image of a word is just as important as the conclusion of the meaning!
sprite
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 6:22:07 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
for me, it's the idea that somehow, based on my gender preference, i am a second class citizen - it equates to blacks being told they can't marry back before equal rights were quite so equal. is it so wrong to ask for that one word? i mean, i'm in a gay partnership at present, and i don't think that the word marriage would change anything about it, but yeah, there's a certain feeling attached to it, to be able to tell someone that you're married, to be able to say those vows, have that anniversary - one day i will want it and all the trappings that go with it and to be told that i can't... what ever happend to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? whom do i harm by being allowed that one simple want? whom do i threaten?

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 7:13:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
"what ever happend to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? whom do i harm by being allowed that one simple want? whom do i threaten?"

The moral minority, who seek to become the moral majority once again, unfortunately.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 7:45:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Kilowatt_Love wrote:
Is it just me or has someone, somewhere, missed something during this whole battle for gay marriage?

A civil partnership is a ridiculous substitute for marriage because the word is both cold and mechanical. This is what bugs me about all of this nonsense; the word marriage connotes this warm, romantic scene while the term civil partnership sounds like a seedy contract. Am I the only one who feels like, despite the fact that each of these terms come with the same result, it is harder to be excited when someone says "I'm having a civil partnership" rather than when someone says "I’m getting married."

Maybe, I'm just a little mad but the emotion, the history and the image of a word is just as important as the conclusion of the meaning!


If I were gay, I'd probably be as pissed off at the disparity between the terms also. Since I'm not gay, it doesn't hit me quite as hard. Instead, I try to see it as one little skirmish in the overall war against bigotry. Win this battle, this way, and we'll be one tiny little step closer to winning the overall war. Then, once these "civil unions" are actually recognized by law, go ahead and use the word "married" at will... as in, "We're getting MARRIEDDDDD!" If people refuse to use the term "civil union" in their everyday speech, then the only place it will mean anything is in the statute books.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 7:51:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
whom do i harm by being allowed that one simple want? whom do i threaten?


Every tyrant needs enemies to point at and hurl insults at. This is the only way they can control the emotions of their followers. Tyrants can only rule by controlling peoples' emotions - logic isn't their strong suit. So as long as there are people that want to rule over other peoples' emotions, people like you be targets for their anger. If it isn't you, it'll be blacks, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Mexicans, Asians, or some other particular group that has raised the ire of the mass collective that is America in this 21st century. And the only way to beat emotion is with stronger emotions. Make love, Darlin', not war. As if you needed to be told to do that... (giggity)

Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:11:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Until your Govenrment truely seperates Church and State, it will stay as a Civil Union.
Marriage, or the concept there of, is as old as the Bible, and in that same Bible, homosexuality is a sin.
Until your Government is prepared to say that "Freedom of Religion" is not the most important freedom to have, and until they can stop a kid wearing a t-shirt that says *God hates fag's*.. nothing will change.

Love is the purest thing on earth, its natural, divine, all encompassing and life changing. It is our right as human beings to love and be loved in return, regardless of sexual orientation. No Government or Religion has the right to take that away from us.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:57:53 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
analqueen79 wrote:

Until your Government is prepared to say that "Freedom of Religion" is not the most important freedom to have, and until they can stop a kid wearing a t-shirt that says *God hates fag's*.. nothing will change.


Uhm, not really.

Personal freedoms and civil liberties have nothing to do with the abundance of traditional Christian morality (read: "old-fashioned") that still provides enough resistance to keep legal same-sex marriages from occurring across the US (though just barely). If anything, its those virtues that are providing the counter-resistance that makes same-sex marriages inevitable and imminent. The resistance to them will still be there, but I don't think there's much question that public sentiment and legal standing is on the side of progress here in the long run.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:59:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
analqueen79 wrote:
Until your Govenrment truely seperates Church and State, it will stay as a Civil Union.
Marriage, or the concept there of, is as old as the Bible, and in that same Bible, homosexuality is a sin.
Until your Government is prepared to say that "Freedom of Religion" is not the most important freedom to have, and until they can stop a kid wearing a t-shirt that says *God hates fag's*.. nothing will change.

Love is the purest thing on earth, its natural, divine, all encompassing and life changing. It is our right as human beings to love and be loved in return, regardless of sexual orientation. No Government or Religion has the right to take that away from us.
In the end, the love between the two people is all that should matter to them.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:01:53 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Yuzar wrote:
In the end, the love between the two people is all that should matter to them.


That's easy to say when the love you hold for that special someone is validated both by the general public and by the laws. For homosexuals, the love for each other is ALL they have.
sprite
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:04:16 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
Yuzar wrote:
analqueen79 wrote:
Until your Govenrment truely seperates Church and State, it will stay as a Civil Union.
Marriage, or the concept there of, is as old as the Bible, and in that same Bible, homosexuality is a sin.
Until your Government is prepared to say that "Freedom of Religion" is not the most important freedom to have, and until they can stop a kid wearing a t-shirt that says *God hates fag's*.. nothing will change.

Love is the purest thing on earth, its natural, divine, all encompassing and life changing. It is our right as human beings to love and be loved in return, regardless of sexual orientation. No Government or Religion has the right to take that away from us.
In the end, the love between the two people is all that should matter to them.


Being accpeted as something other then a non-entity is also important - think about it this way, if someone were to come along and say... hey, Yuzar, we'd decided that everyone with your blood type isn't allowed to get married... yeah, love should matter, but wouldn't you sort of get irrate and say 'hey, wait a minute. that's not fair! that seems kind of unfair.'

This is how i feel. i deserve the same rigths as anyone else, as long as i abide by the same laws as everyone else, right?

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
sprite
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:05:59 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,527
Location: My Tower, United States
LadyX wrote:
Yuzar wrote:
In the end, the love between the two people is all that should matter to them.


That's easy to say when the love you hold for that special someone is validated both by the general public and by the laws. For homosexuals, the love for each other is ALL they have.


and thank you for putting this more perfectly into words then i seem to have been able to. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:26:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLIII#TitleXLIII

For those that espouse that love is all you need, no dis on Lennon, click on the link. Then, use your nimble fingers to search for your own state's statutes on Marriage or Domestic Relations, or whatever your antiquated governments prescription and description of what a loving union means, and then delete it from a gay/lesbian union.

Fair?
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:06:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
Quote:
Uhm, not really.

Personal freedoms and civil liberties have nothing to do with the abundance of traditional Christian morality (read: "old-fashioned") that still provides enough resistance to keep legal same-sex marriages from occurring across the US (though just barely). If anything, its those virtues that are providing the counter-resistance that makes same-sex marriages inevitable and imminent. The resistance to them will still be there, but I don't think there's much question that public sentiment and legal standing is on the side of progress here in the long run.


In the long run.. how much longer must they run? I disagree that the Christian morality is helping the cause rather than hindering.
I remember reading a story in one of my favourite books called "The God delusion" a 12 yr old boy wore a tshirt to school saying *God hates fags* the school made him take the shirt off and ordered he not wear it again. His parents took the school to court and argued that their childs freedom of religion outweighed freedom of speech. Freedom of speech of course can't extend to "hate speech" so he could not wear a tshirt that said "I hate fags" but, the court ruled in favour of the boy and his parents as freedom of religion trumped freedom of speech.
Its the same reason you see people on the side of the road holding their signs that say "homosexuality is a sin" and the very same reason Drs who perform abortions are targeted by the Christian camps who consider them murderers with little to no regard to the circumstances surrounding any abortion they may have performed.
In the bible, homosexuality and abortion are a sin and like it or lump it Politicians, Government and law makers dont like to cause too many waves amongst those whose votes they count on at election time.

Yes, I agree times are changing, but how often does a Politician with zero Religious affiliation get elected? No one goes out their on the campaign trail for the vote of the humble Athiest.

I dont believe for a minute that love is enough, I think validation by the rest of society is extremely important, but I still believe love eventaully conquers all. Mayby I am just nieve.

Sidenote- here in Australia we recently elected our first female Prime Minister, not only is she unmarried, she has no children and she is an Athiest Applause
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:13:22 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
analqueen79 wrote:
I disagree that the Christian morality is helping the cause rather than hindering.


I wasn't saying that they were helping; maybe I was unclear. Your point was that individual freedoms of expression and religion were hindering the cause. That's absolutely not the case. On the contrary, the spirit of freedom and liberties for us all is what helps the cause.

Otherwise we seem to agree, though we word it slightly different. Love is precious to everyone, and when huge groups of people find that their love is not accepted by law and society, they fight for their love, and rightfully so.

How long is the long run? Hopefully not too, but its clear there's a long way to go, unfortunately. I'd say within my lifetime easily. It's just too bad it hasn't happened yet.
She
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:25:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,154
Location: Europe
I don't support marriage at all. For me it's unnecessary certificate of love. It is old fashioned if I may use LadyX words, puts too much preasure on love, on life with partner. I don't need country or church to approve my love.

However I completely support homosexual union. They need to have the same rights, it is not about getting married or not, it is about the same rights as the rest of the world have. It is outrageous that in 21.centurythey still don't have that, outrageous! and the same thing goes for adoption.cussing



lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:49:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I was brought up in a very religious home. I went to Sunday School every week until I was in high school. Was very very active in my church's youth group and later became a youth group director. Some of my closest friends are in the ministry in one form or another. Although I don't regularly attend church and I don't consider myself "religious" I do consider myself to be spirtual... sometimes. haha. Having said all that.. I have nothing at all against gay marriage. Go for it. In fact I think it's pretty fucking dumb that there are people who can't get married.

Having said that, I also don't believe that any church or sect or denomination should be mandated to allow gay marriage. But if any church decides it's ok... GREAT! And any other person qualified to perform marriage should be able to do so. Any civil judge or Justice of the Peace should have to do it. You love who you love... get over it. Actually, many of my friends, including a Methodist minister, believe there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. I think most people are just kind of indifferent to the cause. It doesn't impact them so they choose not to weigh in unless specifically asked. I don't think gay marriage or homosexual union is that far away.

Also, I'm ready for it to be passed and decided. Our politicians have so much more to worry about. In this day and age of war and shitty economy and political disparity and voter dissatisfaction and all the other important issues that we as a country need to deal with.... I don't want my elected officials spending alllll this fucking time debating and discussing who is marrying whom or who is fucking whom or whatever.

If they love each other and want to get married, let 'em. Be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/sheep, woman/donkey. Whatever

Edit... woman/donkey not to be confused with woman/jackass as that is the same as woman/man.








When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Magical_felix
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:31:28 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
I read this article the other day and found it pretty interesting, this thread reminded me of it. It's about young couples in France gravitating toward civil unions over traditional marriage. STRAIGHT young couples by the way. This might be a future trend in other developed countries too. Maybe in time the word marriage will lose some of it's importance. Or at least only retain it's importance with religious people who care about it, the rest of us can just have a union and be done with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/europe/16france.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp



Rembacher
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:47:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Great article Felix!

This is completely not related to the point of the article, but I found it funny that marriages in the US are tracked by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Who ever decided that must not have been a fan of marriage. lol
She
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:01:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,154
Location: Europe
Yes great article indead. Civil union is more appealing to me than tradicional marriage and it is the same for homosexual partners and heterosexual,which I find as most imoprtant thing.

(I cannot stand double rules, no metter on what field they are)
LadyX
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:19:39 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Jebru wrote:
Great article Felix!

This is completely not related to the point of the article, but I found it funny that marriages in the US are tracked by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Who ever decided that must not have been a fan of marriage. lol


Makes sense to me. Marriage kills lots of people.

Magical_felix
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:37:54 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,905
Location: California
LadyX wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Great article Felix!

This is completely not related to the point of the article, but I found it funny that marriages in the US are tracked by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Who ever decided that must not have been a fan of marriage. lol


Makes sense to me. Marriage kills lots of people.



Makes sense to me too jebru. Marriage has been slowly killing my father for 25 years now.



Guest
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:59:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
A similar trend started here about 12 years ago when people stopped getting their kids Christened and started giving them Naming Ceremonies. Instead of welcoming your child into the Church, you welcome them into your family unit. I know alot of parents that opted for this over the years. Mayby the same thing will happen with marriage/civil unions?
SweetPenny
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:34:32 PM

Rank: Moderator

Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,271
Location: State of Confusion
To me, marriage is a traditional or religious union. As such, the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
TheSexyWriter
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:52:11 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/23/2009
Posts: 34
Location: Canada
Marriage is more than just a "certificate of authentation", its the bonding between two lovers. Whether they be straight, gay, or lesbian, marriage should bring people together, not split them apart. In my eyes, gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married and carry that title. This is now, and times have changed. At the same thought, however, the term of marriage indeed has been thrown around a lot, but should retain its same value: two lovers wishing to spend their life together (although these days its sad how short-lived these marriages are)
Iszofia
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:14:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/26/2010
Posts: 534
Location: Cloudland, AUSTRALIA
What is the difference between marriage and a civil partnership? I’ve read a little bit on civil partnership but I really don’t see the difference.

I have somewhat conflicting views on the notion of marriage. When I’m particularly feeling cynical I view marriage quite superficially and just as ‘a piece of paper’. I do hope to get married one day because deep down I see marriage as a union between two people who want to share the rest of their loves together. The love they have is multifaceted, they are spiritually connected and most important their friendship runs deep. The up and downs they’ve shared is what shaped them as a couple and marriage only works if both people grow together. Some say marriage is hard work but I believe if your take care of each other and are considerate and appreciative then you shouldn’t have to work hard to maintain your union. I’m heading into a five year relationship, I feel as though we are already ‘married’, to others, particularly my mother, she probably doesn’t view it this way because we haven’t physically declared the act in the form of an ceremony. But it isn’t about what other people think. Maybe that’s why some people rush into it and then end up getting divorced. The divorce rate is high these days because it so easy to dissolve the marriage due to money and the superficial values and this gives the idea people don’t take marriage seriously.

Marriage used to be an union of convenience (for money, arranged, class etc) then someone declared love should be involved now it is becoming more of on institution based on protecting your assets and income, having to sign a prenup, influenced by celebrities. Maybe that’s why some people are put off by marriage.

Anyway I think it’s completely stupid and unfair to have laws dictating that marriage is suppose to be between man and woman. I view it as extremely archaic and traditional. Marriage is a choice. The word isn’t that important at all. (Maybe it needs to be redefine) It’s the life you share together that counts whether in a hetero or homosexual relationship. You and the person involved in the relationship should be the ones that make up the rules.
Guest
Posted: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:23:19 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
sprite wrote:

Being accpeted as something other then a non-entity is also important - think about it this way, if someone were to come along and say... hey, Yuzar, we'd decided that everyone with your blood type isn't allowed to get married... yeah, love should matter, but wouldn't you sort of get irrate and say 'hey, wait a minute. that's not fair! that seems kind of unfair.'

This is how i feel. i deserve the same rigths as anyone else, as long as i abide by the same laws as everyone else, right?
Once again,"I have no personal issues with gay's getting married." People who practice a religion that forbids it do, however. The government stepping in is a violation of the "separation of church and state." But as long as politicians can rack in support through illegalizing it, then it'll remain as such.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:51:02 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Yuzar wrote:
Once again, "I have no personal issues with gay's getting married." People who practice a religion that forbids it do, however. The government stepping in is a violation of the "separation of church and state." But as long as politicians can rack in support through illegalizing it, then it'll remain as such.


To me, some things should just be stopped on grounds of human decency. Yes, I know decency is subjective, but on some subjects, the only right things to do are to either rise up and be vocal if you're behind the cause, or shame others into conceding that it's only right, and just, and fair for the change to happen, even if they don't really have strong personal feelings about it.

I hate to keep going to the same cards when it comes to historical examples (I'm really going to have to read more about history soon), but I think its safe to say that plenty of Germans didn't really feel that other races needed to be exterminated in the 1930s and 1940s, but they certainly did nobody any favors by staying silent. Same with unequal rights with non-whites in the US, and same with women, prior to them being awarded equal rights. We all know that bigots opposed equal rights for them, but the right thing ultimately was done. In the case of civil rights for non-whites, a President acted in the face of vehement opposition. It did not stand to benefit him politically; it was simply the right thing to do.

In the case of gay marriage, the fact that some people oppose it by citing their personal beliefs does not validate the policy. Certain tribes in the Congo believe that certain other tribes need to be eliminated from existence, but that doesn't validate genocide.

Not to pick on Yuzar, but if someone's take is that they have no issue with gay marriage, yet acknowledge the opposition that stands in the way of it, it begs the questions, "Where do YOU stand on it? Is it okay by you that it continues to be exclusionary, since it doesn't affect you directly? If so, then what's the real difference between passively acknowledging the reasons for inequality, and being an active party to it?"
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:27:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,741
iszofia wrote:


Marriage used to be an union of convenience (for money, arranged, class etc) then someone declared love should be involved now it is becoming more of on institution based on protecting your assets and income, having to sign a prenup, influenced by celebrities. Maybe that’s why some people are put off by marriage.



YES!! Me included! The only thing you got wrong here dear is that you say that marriage is becoming an institution of protecting assets but that is a big part of what marriage has been for all this time. All the other things you said about it being arranged for money and class, that is all the exact truth, and it still goes on kinda like that even here.

I have put some thought on this, and also about the way that my family would expect me to marry a certain kind of person. Maybe I'll leave out exactly what that means, but here is a clue. Marriage has always been about preserving things. Preserving traditions, money, class, businesses, families. All the most important things to that group of people, marriage was made to protect those things. Because if you marry people who have just as much stake in all those things that you do, then its built to last. Love is something you hope to have, and maybe its not such a romantic type of love even. But the love is not 100% of the point of marriage at least in traditional marriages.

So like Em says then we get these big ideas that want marriage to satisfy love and sex too? And its great that women now can openly find those things because they are basic human needs, but are we expecting too much of marriage?? If we preserve our life style through marriage, maybe great things are being done there, but to expect that to happen and also be loved and sexually satisfied is asking for cake and to eat it too?

I date and have sex with who I want but I don't take them home to meet my mom and dad. They are rarely Chinese and even if they are I don't want their hopes up for things I might not want. Marriage ideas are so important in my family and there is so much I don't say in order not to embarrass. I know that it is probably not for me and if it ever is, I have to know the trade off I am making.

Family business is not always so easy, and nobody can make sense or change families from the outside. It is who we are. Outside of families though? Shame on anybody for trying to dictate who can marry who and what that will mean! If people want marriage, let them have it. At least thats how I see it.



myself
Posted: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:59:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
Kilowatt_Love wrote:
Maybe, I'm just a little mad but the emotion, the history and the image of a word is just as important as the conclusion of the meaning!


I understand your feelings but why is the image of a word just as important as the conclusion of the meaning?

Because of decided variances and popular beliefs in the meaning of the word marriage, we have in fact endangered the institution and have lost the original meaning already in my opinion. The emotions, and the images, and the history of marriage will change continuously as it has already been proven. People are working on a way to join same sex couples legally ultimately to fulfill the needs of society. We, the human race, dictate these kinds of movements and tailor-fit meanings to words all the time. It is a matter of process and can be viewed as evolution. If it is the integrity of the meaning of the word marriage you're talking about, the title we're joined under should not change this for anyone, and if it does, then even more of the definition is lost in my opinion. : )

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:54:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
myself wrote:
Kilowatt_Love wrote:
Maybe, I'm just a little mad but the emotion, the history and the image of a word is just as important as the conclusion of the meaning!


I understand your feelings but why is the image of a word just as important as the conclusion of the meaning?

Because of decided variances and popular beliefs in the meaning of the word marriage, we have in fact endangered the institution and have lost the original meaning already in my opinion. The emotions, and the images, and the history of marriage will change continuously as it has already been proven. People are working on a way to join same sex couples legally ultimately to fulfill the needs of society. We, the human race, dictate these kinds of movements and tailor-fit meanings to words all the time. It is a matter of process and can be viewed as evolution. If it is the integrity of the meaning of the word marriage you're talking about, the title we're joined under should not change this for anyone, and if it does, then even more of the definition is lost in my opinion. : )


You're looking at it too logically. The world isn't based on logic, it's based on emotion, and this is important to people who see things emotionally. I understand. I think I do. When you buy a house, you never really own it - you merely occupy it. You pay yearly rent to the government in the form of property taxes, and if you fail to pay that rent, the government can step in and take your house away from you. Still, I say "I own it." Doesn't matter that the bank actually owns it (until I pay off the mortgage), and that I'm really just renting the space from the government... "I own it."

In the same vein, when I got married, I got married. I didn't sign some namby-pamby "civil union". I didn't enter into a "cohabitation contract". I got married. Words matter, and until everyone has the same freedoms as everyone else has, then nobody is really free.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.