Florida State Seminoles

[Owlman]

And the idea isn't new.

Which is the point that I was making

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

I'm not sure what that was about. Whether I missed your post, or am guilty of being redundant on something you said to someone else (or to me, for that matter), or even what topic you and I were discussing. Regardless, I concede the point and/or offer a heartfelt mea culpa, or both.

[Bklyn]

the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all

But they are and that's why homosexuals should be afforded that same right and have it recognized.

[eCat]

the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all

But they are and that's why homosexuals should be afforded that same right and have it recognized.

they can have the sames rights, they can have a union specifically designed for Homosexuals

But its not marriage

[Owlman]

Spacer,

I'm not sure what that was about. Whether I missed your post, or am guilty of being redundant on something you said to someone else (or to me, for that matter), or even what topic you and I were discussing. Regardless, I concede the point and/or offer a heartfelt mea culpa, or both.

I was agreeing with you.

[AlabamAlum]

Oh. I didn't remember the line.

[AlabamAlum]

the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all

But they are and that's why homosexuals should be afforded that same right and have it recognized.

they can have the sames rights, they can have a union specifically designed for Homosexuals

But its not marriage

Nope. It's marriage. Can't have the 'separate but equal' ridiculousness. And it's happening all over, like dominoes. All 50 states will allow same- sex marriage in my lifetime.

[Jungle Rat]

Why can't they just recognize it as a "Gay Union"? Or a "Faggot Fix Up"?

[eCat]

I've said all I can about it.

[BigRedMan]

"so now you're going to tell me that homosexuals were demanding to be married in 1800's, the 1700's, 1600's? going all the way back to Sumaria?"

Not like the women folk were treated with any respect and had rights back in those days. They were for making babies, raising the babies, cooking dinner, and shutting the hell up.

And as far as government not being involved in marriages, well someone needs to regulate it in a law type sense. If you have ZERO influence from it from a law perspective, you would have women married to cats, men married to children, and any other number of combos of people, animals, and blow up dolls.

The biggest issue is the word marriage. Take it out and call ALL marriages, civil unions, gay or straight.

[eCat]

" They were for making babies, raising the babies, cooking dinner, and shutting the hell up."

otherwise known as the Good ole days

[hedge]

"I have no problem with homosexuals having a union similar to marriage that addresses the needs they have for legal, insurance, etc, but it should not be called marriage.

Its important to make that distinction."

Why is that important? To me, that's not important at all, and I can't really understand why someone would think it is. I guess people who are against it can say it offends them, in the same way using racial slurs is offensive, but to me, that's not the same thing at all...

[eCat]

"I have no problem with homosexuals having a union similar to marriage that addresses the needs they have for legal, insurance, etc, but it should not be called marriage.

Its important to make that distinction."

Why is that important? To me, that's not important at all, and I can't really understand why someone would think it is. I guess people who are against it can say it offends them, in the same way using racial slurs is offensive, but to me, that's not the same thing at all...

because it dilutes the term. People are equating rights, which I have no problem with, to the term marriage, but down the road we may yet again , have another definition change of what marriage is.

[hedge]

If diluting the term is your objection, I would think you'd have a much bigger problem with divorce than with gay marriage...

[Bklyn]

From a legal perspective, animals, children and inanimate objects are not afforded the exact same rights as adult citizens. So, I don't know if BRM's thought of weird types of "-gamy" will come into play.

However, with Corporations now being afford speech protection, you may be on to something.

[eCat]

If diluting the term is your objection, I would think you'd have a much bigger problem with divorce than with gay marriage...

divorce doesn't redefine marriage though

[hedge]

I think you'd get some heavy disagreement on that statement from the catholic authorities. At every wedding I've been to, they say "til death do us part." If that sacred vow is one of the bedrock principles that apply to the bond into which you are entering, you can't tell me that divorce doesn't change the meaning of it at its very core...

[hedge]

Divorce redefines marriage far more than gay people getting married does...

[AlabamAlum]

I don't agree that it dilutes the term at all. In my lexicon, the term 'marriage' simply means the ceremony that legally binds two consenting adults together. I do not see a need to limit it to only certain creeds, races, genders, or whatever. In fact, it's none of my business.

The root of the word marriage comes from the Latin 'maritatus' - which just means 'to wed' or 'to give in marriage' and did not mandate hetero. It's not like there is a big book somewhere that is full of iron-clad and immutable social definitions.

I just cant fathom the opposition with people who essentially say, "No, gay people should shack-up; no committed marriage for you!" Or "You can have a civil ceremony, but we heteros own the word marriage and you can't use it!"

[eCat]

I don't agree that it dilutes the term at all. In my lexicon, the term 'marriage' simply means the ceremony that legally binds two consenting adults together. I do not see a need to limit it to only certain creeds, races, genders, or whatever. In fact, it's none of my business.

The root of the word marriage comes from the Latin 'maritatus' - which just means 'to wed' or 'to give in marriage' and did not mandate hetero. It's not like there is a big book somewhere that is full of iron-clad and immutable social definitions.

I just cant fathom the opposition with people who essentially say, "No, gay people should shack-up; no committed marriage for you!" Or "You can have a civil ceremony, but we heteros own the word marriage and you can't use it!"

why do gays need the term marriage in order to have a union with each other? is there some rule in the world that two gay people can't be devoted to each other unless they have the term married stamped on them?