Should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed? Why or why not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should the Defense of Marriage Act be Repealed?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
Yes. Until this bill was implemented, marriage had never before been hindered based on residence.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
People who think they have the authority to repress two consenting adults the right to be with each other and to deny any legal rights heterosexuals possess is ludicrous.
DOMA sucked. Personally, I feel this was Clinton's biggest dim-witted move, and the Senate was just as dim-witted.
I think it should be repealed, and that we should accept nothing less than full equal marriage rights, liberties, and protections for the GBLTQ community. Not civil unions, but marriage rights.
We've been through this separate-but-equal crap before. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and it will never work in the future.
I think it should be repealed, and that we should accept nothing less than full equal marriage rights, liberties, and protections for the GBLTQ community. Not civil unions, but marriage rights.
We've been through this separate-but-equal crap before. It didn't work then, it won't work now, and it will never work in the future.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It would be easier and more effective to just get rid of the word "marriage" to describe our unions, and just call everything civil unions or some such thing.
The word "marriage" cannot mean anything other than heterosexual unity. "Gay marriage" is technically incorrect, and untrue to the etemology of the word, and historical and legal usage. That's one reason why Obama was able to say that he doesn't want to redefine marriage, because he can't. It's like the court ruling that a circle must have three sides, or a triangle have four corners.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
No kidding and great idea.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I agree here completely.
Actually, the term "marriage" can mean same-sex union or many other things. Meanings of words change as cultures change. Some societies have had same-sex marriages, and some societies currently do. It's actually quite possible to use marriage to mean just that. You example of a court ruling doesn't work. Allowing same-sex marriages doesn't mean marriage "must" involve people of the same sex, just that it can. Also, it's just a bad analogy.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes, in the same way that some cultures have four sided triangles.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Yes. That would be the simplest solution - take the word "marriage" out of the legal relationship currently recognized by that name. If religious people want to view the unions of other consenting adults as not "marriage" they would then be welcome to have their own ceremonies presided over by the leadership of their preferred social institution and they'd be free to call that non-legal aspect of the relationship "marriage" (or whatever they want to call it).
Elessar
Well-Known Member
yes! Frubals!
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Oh, sorry. It's reactionary nonsense and will be swept away eventually.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
**MOD ADVISORY**
An off-topic discussion was moved to another thread.
An off-topic discussion was moved to another thread.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Can I just say "Yes" and assume you already know my argument?
Can I just say "Yes" and assume you already know my argument?
Certainly! I actually thought of you two when I read the provisions of the act again in preparing this thread.
