Gayrriage!

[blackout]

What if 3 or more people want to get married with each other, what should we call that?

Triage!

Moreiage. >> Morriage.

 

[McBell]

The point of the OP is an answer to many people who claim that they are not against homosexual couples living together, but firmly believe that the institution of marriage is historically between one man and one woman.

The OP is saying to let heterosexual keep the word "Marriage" and call all other unions "gayriage" but let them both have the same rights, privileges, etc.


That is a classic "separate but equal" scenario.
Since there has not been a single time where "separate but equal" has ever worked....

 

[blackout]

People are VERY attatched to their favorite combined syllables.

They will go to war over them.

 

[waitasec]

I don't agree with the use of surrogates either. I didn't suggest that heterosexual couples were always in the right or responsible, there's a reason that so many children are in orphanages to begin with. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone should be able to adopt them. I didn't say anything about a community, I was referring to homosexual couples having the right to adopt.

This issue, however, will not be resolved by rhetoric alone, and I really don't have any solution to people irresponsibly popping out babies either. But using a surplus of babies as an excuse for allowing anyone to take claim over them is not really a reasonable argument imo.

not anyone can take claim over them though.
you make it seem like one can mail order a child.
of course there is a criteria...
but for some reason you think same sex couples are automatically supposed to be denied because it is a same sex couple.

there was a time when women couldn't vote, own property or wear pants to work...me thinks you would prefer that to still be the case...why?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Cameron announced this week that the coalition is going to bring in Civil Marriage for gays next year With all the same rights and duties as heterosexual marriage...Up to now we have have had civil partnerships, which are somewhat truncated legally.

 

[Jainarayan]

What if 3 or more people want to get married with each other, what should we call that?

Polygamy or polyandry.

 

[Jainarayan]

The right to adopt is what concerns me.

Why?

NJ has permitted adoption by gay couples for at least 10 years. There is no indication that it's harmful in any way. There's no indication anywhere that it's harmful in any way. In fact it's a more stable arrangement than a single parent household.

Children don't learn to be gay from their parents; children don't learn to be at all, either they are or they aren't. Nor do they learn roles from their parents, considering that gender roles in heterosexual relationships are no longer clearly defined. It's stability, love and discipline children need.

 

[Jainarayan]

Some people adamantly state that marriage is between one man and one woman.

It's usually the bible literalists and staunch Christians. The bible needs to be redacted to remove the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who each had more than one wife at a time.

 

[Jainarayan]

Won't work.

The current situation of civil unions as opposed to marriage allows States to write laws exempting those in civil unions from having the benefits of marriage or even disallowing couples in civil unions from adopting. By creating a separate term there will always be the ability to write separate laws.

States that have civil unions have circumvented the gay marriage opponents by actually giving all the same rights, benefits and privileges to gay partners as heterosexual spouses.

At least in NJ, civil union is marriage under a different name, and no one in NJ's LGBT community is squawking. All quiet on the east coat. There is absolutely no difference in the law. Moreover, states that have civil unions and gay marriage fully recognize each other. The problem is at the federal level and states that don't recognize civil unions/gay marriages.

 

[Jainarayan]

The point of the OP is an answer to many people who claim that they are not against homosexual couples living together, but firmly believe that the institution of marriage is historically between one man and one woman.

Is this a civil and legal objection to gay marriage, or a religious one?

 

[blackout]

Polygamy or polyandry.

This specifies only "One man, many(multiple) women" or "One woman, many(multiple) men".
It also (traditionally) assumes that the multiple same sex members of the marriage are not sexual partners.
There are of course many other potential group marriage..erm... morriage, arrangement possibilities.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh, I see.

Well, it already happens...

1. One guy, two women; the guy and a woman have sex; the women have sex.
2. Two guys, one woman; a guy and a woman have sex, the two guys have sex.

Ii marriage between two men or two women is giving people a fit, this arrangement will cause them a cerebral aneurysm! :biglaugh:

 

[blackout]

Oh, I see.

Well, it already happens...

1. One guy, two women; the guy and a woman have sex; the women have sex.
2. Two guys, one woman; a guy and a woman have sex, the two guys have sex.

Ii marriage between two men or two women is giving people a fit, this arrangement will cause them a cerebral aneurysm! :biglaugh:

Well yes, and in a triangle, all three enjoy sexual intimacy together.
(ie, all at once)--the above arrangements require the bisexual component. Obviously.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well yes, and in a triangle, all three enjoy sexual intimacy together.

Processing... please stand by...

:help:

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I do not personally support same sex marriage because it is a against my Christian religion, but I am prochoice about it because as a Christian I believe that God gave people freedom of choice.

 

[connermt]

Some people adamantly state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Well, okay. If people don't want to lend the word 'marriage' to apply to other forms of union, then lets have the new word 'gayrriage' to cover all the rest of the unions between consenting adults. And lets give consenting adults in a gayrriage the same rights as heterosexual couples in a marriage. Deal?

Why is it "fine" to differentiate one group from another simply due to light historical and societal tradition?

 

[Jainarayan]

I do not personally support same sex marriage because it is a against my Christian religion, but I am prochoice about it because as a Christian I believe that God gave people freedom of choice.

Not all Christian denominations oppose gay marriage, based on different interpretations and translations of those "clobber" passages in the bible:

http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_ch...ow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Christian Scriptures
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Hebrew Scriptures

Not trying to change anyone's mind, just bringing some things to light that aren't always known.

Of course, as a follower of Sanatana Dharma, it only matters to me for legal equality for people. Hinduism has nothing theologically to say about homosexuality or same sex marriage. No pujari (Hindu priest) will perform a same sex marriage not because Hinduism is opposed to homosexuality, but rather because it is pro-procreation, which necessitates a heterosexual union.

Anti-gay sentiments and laws in India (laws since repealed) were introduced by Europeans during their colonizations and rule of India.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I'm just glad to be living in Canada, where same-sex marriage is performed.

The current issue is now onto polygamy and polygamous relationships, and whether polyamory can have official recognition or not.

Now THAT is a confusing thing, in my most humble opinion.

And there are various pundits out there who can and do perform same-sex marriages apparently nowadays.

 

[darkstar]

I do not personally support same sex marriage because it is a against my Christian religion, but I am prochoice about it because as a Christian I believe that God gave people freedom of choice.

Exactly. If it is your personal beliefs that it is against YOUR religion, that's great. Then don't do it. But I'm always pleased to see someone that is pro choice about the things that they don't personally agree with.

I constantly tell people "If you are against homosexuality, then don't have homosexual sex. But you can't impose your values on others."
Not only that, I support the rights of the many Christians that are against homosexuality. However, their religious views shouldn't be made law. Nobody's religious views should be law, period.

I'm just glad that I see more and more people, both religious and non religious, that are supporting the civil rights of people despite their own personal feelings on the matter.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Not all Christian denominations oppose gay marriage, based on different interpretations and translations of those "clobber" passages in the bible:

http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_ch...ow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Christian Scriptures
A brief description of the anti-gay clobber passages in the Hebrew Scriptures

Not trying to change anyone's mind, just bringing some things to light that aren't always known.

Of course, as a follower of Sanatana Dharma, it only matters to me for legal equality for people. Hinduism has nothing theologically to say about homosexuality or same sex marriage. No pujari (Hindu priest) will perform a same sex marriage not because Hinduism is opposed to homosexuality, but rather because it is pro-procreation, which necessitates a heterosexual union.

Anti-gay sentiments and laws in India (laws since repealed) were introduced by Europeans during their colonizations and rule of India.

I understand that. I just happen to be a conservative Christian.