Definition of marriage

[MtnBiker]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman, then what is the definition of marriage? Or what should it be?

Some say two men should be able to marry and that two women should be able to marry. Well why stop there. Why deny rights to polygamistis? Or a man or woman from marrying their adult child? There could even be people that want to marry their pets? Why deny their rights?

[Insein]

My position has always been homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions and receive all the benefits that the government gives married couples through law. It just makes sense.

However, marriage is a religious sacrament. It should be the Church's sole discretion as to whether or not they will allow them to celebrate their civil union as a marriage. There shall be no law created to infringe upon the rights of religous freedom. If a religion doesn't acknowledge a civil union as a marriage in the Church's eye, then you have to respect that religion's decision. People trying to force religions to conform to laws that contradict their basic beliefs is against the first ammendment's freedom of religious persecution.

[MtnBiker]

Well, what about 2 people that are married at the court house and had nothing to do with a church?

[Insein]

Technically, its not marriage through a church. All government "marriages" are basically civil unions. They are "married" together to get the benefits of being a married couple either because a church denied them that request or they are looking for a quicker arrangement. Either way I have no problem with them wanting to join together.

This whole argument is about semantics. Allow gays to have a civil union or let them establish a church where they can get "married." The bottomline is, they should have the same tax privileges as a married couple. Thats my whole stance on the argument. The philosophical end doesn't concern me. Equality should be an easy enough thing to do.

[glockmail]

Technically, its not marriage through a church. ....

Bullshit. The Church has been around a lot longer than the guv'mint.

[Insein]

Bullshit. The Church has been around a lot longer than the guv'mint.

No you misunderstood. I meant that the marriage by the government is not technically a marriage. It's only a civil union. Marriage is a religious union and should stay as such.

But gays should be allowed to have civil unions.

[Little-Acorn]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman,

It is. In some areas there might be more than one of one of the genders, but there is always man and woman.

then what is the definition of marriage?

See answer A.

Or what should it be?

See answer A.

The gay activists are bending over backward (oops, wrong image) exercising the advice of their mentor from a couple generations back, who said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it, and it will become the truth.

Making proper fools of themselves while they do it, too.

[theHawk]

I'm with President Obama and Hillary Clinton on this one: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[jimnyc]

If the definition of marriage is not a marriage between one man and one woman, then what is the definition of marriage?

In my book it will ALWAYS be between one man and one woman. They can legalize marriage for the diseased queers in every state but it won't change my definition. Even if their marriages are legally recognized, I will still see them as freaks of nature - and no amount of protesting by them will ever change that.

[Mr. P]

Pick one.


n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but
usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

5. My Definition: Till death do we part.

[MtnBiker]

Pick one.


n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but
usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

5. My Definition: Till death do we part.

"1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Would that legal union include a man marrying his adult female child?

Why is polygamy omitted from the definition? That could include; Till death do we part.

[Mr. P]

"1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Would that legal union include a man marrying his adult female child?

Why is polygamy omitted from the definition? That could include; Till death do we part.

My definition of "marriage" is only what I'm addressing. Not the societal accepted norms or unaccepted practices.

[MtnBiker]

My definition of "marriage" is only what I'm addressing. Not the societal accepted norms or unaccepted practices.

Understood.

It should be regonized that there are those that wish to see the definition of marriage expanded and see that expansion as a protection of their "rights". It should also be regonized that there could be other minority groups that will also seek "rights". This will continue until a legal definition is applied for each state and some minority groups can argue unfair treatment if another minority group has already been granted certian rights.

[sgtdmski]

Insein hit the nail on the head. It is all about changing the definition of the word marriage. What better way to frame the argument and change the debate than to change the meaning of the word that is causing the controversy. All one has to do is look at California to know that this is true.

Under California code, homosexuals are allowed domestic partnerships, which carry the same rights and benefits as marriage. So if it were not about changing the definition of the word, what is all the outcry from the gays in California over the recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Anytime you ask the gays they talk about rights, yet in California they already have those rights. But they will always come back to rights. It is all a lie. They want the word, plain and simple.

dmk

[actsnoblemartin]

so loving you are

In my book it will ALWAYS be between one man and one woman. They can legalize marriage for the diseased queers in every state but it won't change my definition. Even if their marriages are legally recognized, I will still see them as freaks of nature - and no amount of protesting by them will ever change that.