Was I in the wrong here?

The way I see it, marriage is a formal union between two people by a contract or through a religious ceremony. Nothing in my definition says it has to be a man and a woman, and I absolutely think gay marriage should be called marriage, and giving it another name is undermining the significance of the ceremony.

She probably won't change her opinion, I don't think many will, but I personally don't think you should give up

 

So why use a different word for the same thing?

 

That's what we did for after the Civil War. Bathrooms, drinking fountains, schools, houses and subdivisions all were the same things, but they were marked off as strictly a "black" place or thing, or a "white" place or thing. I think we're seeing that come up again in the US in a smaller way with gay marriage and other rights.

 

You are correct- in the US, we have fought battles over separate but equal for too long. There is no reason to have two classes of people - one that has rights and another who do not.

Something to think about-

In most countries, marriage is a secular union that is handled by the government. You go get a marriage certificate and go to the courthouse to get married. If you wish, you can have a religious ceremony in a church or synogogue but it's not required.

It's only in a few countries like the US that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it's probably the cause of a lot of the battles that are going on in the US over the definition of marriage.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Marriage defines the parentage of children for legal purposes but it does not ensure that children will be produced, nor is it required to have children.

 

I view this from a non religious point of view. Scrap marriage all together, as there are alot of non religious people who are 'together'.


Create a term, for all people, that is recognized by governments etc.
Pretty sure as it stands in Australia, A gay couple cannot receive the same benifits as a straight couple. One part of that, is superannuation.



To the thread starter, ask that girl if she thinks black people shouldn't be allowed to get married, because there black.....same thing. Either way she is still discriminating.

 

By her definition, anyone who doesn't reproduce isn't married. It's like saying a woman with a hysterectomy isn't a woman. You were right.

 

If marriage is a union of two people, then gay marriage should be called marriage and heterosexual marriage should be called marriage as well. Where people differ is whether or not the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think a fight over wording though is silly. I'd rather, someday in my life, be able to obtain a Civil Union from the federal government and have the same rights as a married couple, as opposed to never having these rights because people are fighting over wording.

I don't think calling gay marriage Civil Union or domestic partnership is any more segregating/discriminatory than calling a gay a homosexual rather than a heterosexual. Gay people are attracted to individuals of the same sex and so are called homosexual, whereas heterosexual people are attracted to individuals of the opposite sex and so are called heterosexual. Gay people may presumably end up in an interpersonal relationship recognized by their government/religion/society with individuals of the same sex whereas a Straight person may end up in an interpersonal relationship recognized by their government/religion/society with individuals of the opposite sex. That sentence defines two different forms of contract, hence the potential need for two different names for those contracts.

If the straight community starts supporting the wording "marriage" to define a gay as well as straight union, then by all means lets call a gay marriage a marriage and a heterosexual marriage a marriage. Otherwise, I don't care much if a gay marriage is actually something else, as long as the rights are the same.

 

i agree with davo..Gay Marriage will never be equal or the same as hetero marriage if it is termed somthing else...:icon_sad: I would tell her what davo said..:icon_bigg

 

Try asking her whether marriage for infertile straight couples should be called civil unions as well. Then remind her that all women above the age of around 50 are infertile. See how she likes that.

 

The way I see it, most people view marriage as a constant; something that never changes. They think, "But marriage has always been this way." The thing is, marriage has changed a lot. In the past, marriage was all about procreation, and for the social/political elite it was about politics (as in, marrying into a certain family, or whatever requirements they had for royalty, etc.). But in the last hundred years or so, we started marrying for love. So marriage is now mostly about the person you love, not some stranger your parents chose before you were born. Well, it turns out love does not always care about gender. So as long as marriage is seen as a union between two people who love each other, then gay marriage should definitely be called marriage.

 

I don't know how the law works in your jurisdiction but in the UK the laws dealing with marriages and civil partnerships are slightly different by necessity and use slightly different terminology. I suppose one advantage of having different terms is that it's less confusing if you need to distinguish between the two things. That said, if they're labelled 'civil partnerships' to kind of throw a bone to people who don't support them... maybe there's something objectionable there. I don't think either of you were particularly 'wrong' to be honest.

 

lol kinda off topic but i've also noticed on sims (computer game) at first when gay couples get married, they call it marriage, but now it's some union thingy or something similar but it's not marriage anymore lol..just thought i'd say :lol:

 

I think that it should be called marriage, after all she says about different races but if two different races get married then it's still marriage If people really want EVERYONE to be equal then the best way to go about it is for everyone to have the same rights. To me marriage represents a comitment and this whole "Joined Union" thingy makes it seem something less. The trouble is that she obviously thinks she's ok with LGBT relationshibs but subconciously still has slight reservations would be my guess so is it worth arguing? :goodevil: I'd say yes more to try and win other peopl over than just her but then again I never let arguments go I've allways got to win :icon_wink

 

That reply sounds really good to me! Keep holding your ground. And kudos for backing away before you got angry to her face. That was the right thing to do. Keep a clear head and she won't stand a chance.

 

fairly well put together

 

Maybe when different races get married we should call them different things.

White MAN and WOMAN=Marriage
Man and Man= Civil Union
Woman Woman= domestic partnership
Black people= blarriage
Asian People=Asarriage
Hispanic people=Hisparriage...

does that sound logical? not at all. People are people, get the eff over it.


*I wrote me a big english paper on this, and a few scholarship essays..*

 

I like that replay

 

I think that you're being a little harsh on the girl here. She may have been in the wrong by using the word "procreate" to describe marriage, but she did have a point. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, gay marriage is different than straight marriage. Personally, I believe that it isn't our place as a community to force ourselves upon an innaccepting society, but rather become integrated into it. If they are willing to give us all the rights of a legal marriage, then we should be happy and take whatever chance we get. So why sweat over the name? Some progress is better than none.