Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

It sounds like what you are saying is gays shouldn't be so hung up on a simple word, but obviously, they can say the same thing about you...

[eCat]

except my word has had a common definition among cultures for thousands of years.

as to my point about dilution, someone like AA will be making the same argument down the road when someone wants to change the definition of marriage again - the latin phrase isn't specific to hetero - meaning there is no exclusion to the base definition, yet hetero marriage as a norm predates the latin creation of the word itself.

Marriage is the high school diploma, gays can get together but its going to have to be a G.E.D.

[Toemeesleather]

One man + one woman=procreation, survival of the species.(evolution) Less than that = devolution/degeneration.

Is this religion or science?

[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!"

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?

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

[eCat]

I have no religious basis for my beliefs on this. Matter of fact I think you lose ground when you predicate it by being gods word or that a homosexual union is forbidden in the bible.

[Cletus]

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?

Do you know any gay couples who are married? If so, how is their relationship any different than your married relationship. Other than the fact that it's two men or women rather than a man and a woman, every gay couple I know who is married lives exactly the same as all the other married couples I know. And, that includes raising kids.

[AlabamAlum]

One man + one woman=procreation, survival of the species.(evolution) Less than that = devolution/degeneration.

Is this religion or science?

You don't need marriage to procreate, and we have always allowed non-procreating marriages.

[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?

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

because when a man and woman got together thousands of years ago , that's what they called it. Then they built society and laws around the concept and what the intent of it was for.

[AlabamAlum]

I have no religious basis for my beliefs on this. Matter of fact I think you lose ground when you predicate it by being gods word or that a homosexual union is forbidden in the bible.

Interestingly, I don't believe Jesus spoke on homosexuality. No doubt, it was a theme in the Old Testament, but even most religious people say the O.T. Is batshit insane.

[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?

Do you know any gay couples who are married? If so, how is their relationship any different than your married relationship. Other than the fact that it's two men or women rather than a man and a woman, every gay couple I know who is married lives exactly the same as all the other married couples I know. And, that includes raising kids.

its irrelevant to my argument. I'm not against gay people in a long term relationship raising kids and acting like a couple.I'm more than happy to give them that. But its not marriage.

[Cletus]

You didn't answer my question.

[Toemeesleather]

You don't need marriage to procreate,


True, I guess that's why kids/single girls (16 and younger) having kids is so popular and good for a society.

[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!"


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?


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

because when a man and woman got together thousands of years ago , that's what they called it. Then then built society and laws around the concept and what the intent of it was for.

They certainly did not call it 'marriage' thousands of years ago.

[Cletus]

And, it is definitely marriage and it's absurd to think otherwise.

[AlabamAlum]

You don't need marriage to procreate,


True, I guess that's why kids/single girls (16 and younger) having kids is so popular and good for a society.

Agreed. Score another positive for the gay couples.

[eCat]

You didn't answer my question.

yes, I know 2 gay couples living together. Both are men, neither have kids. I worked with one of them and another is a friend from school. I see them regularly.

[Cletus]

You didn't answer my question.

yes, I know 2 gay couples living together. Both are men, neither have kids. I worked with one of them and another is a friend from school. I see them regularly.

How is their relationship any different than a man/woman childless couple? Why does the later couple get to decide to call themselves married but the former can't?

[hedge]

"I'm not against gay people in a long term relationship raising kids and acting like a couple.I'm more than happy to give them that. But its not marriage."

Well, I guess the only thing that matters in that case is who is doing the giving. Obviously, "marriage" is now something that the government has gotten involved in (like everything else), and if they are the ones "giving" it, they're going to give it to gays. Already have. The clock isn't going to be turned back on this one...

Now as far as if certain clubs (churches) want to sanction it according to their rules, I don't know. But obviously, the state is also involved in religion (tax exempt status, etc), so they could bring pressure to bear on these clubs if they don't follow certain state rules. They still might not have to do it, but I doubt they'll want to run afoul of the government or lose any tax-exempt status they enjoy now...

[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?


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

because when a man and woman got together thousands of years ago , that's what they called it. Then then built society and laws around the concept and what the intent of it was for.

They certainly did not call it 'marriage' thousands of years ago.

whats telling to me is you're so devoted to your point you can't simply admit that the common definition of marriage by society is the union between a man and a woman. If you have to fog the reality of the world we live in and have lived in for thousands of years, then I'm not sure you're on such solid ground with your argument. You're going to tell me that in some segment of society , a small % tolerates a union between the same sexes, or that the latin definition doesn't exclude homo - and that is the basis to overrule the norm in society since the beginning of society itself.

seriously, I'd rather you just call me a redneck neanderthal that beat that ridiculous drum into the ground.

[eCat]

You didn't answer my question.

yes, I know 2 gay couples living together. Both are men, neither have kids. I worked with one of them and another is a friend from school. I see them regularly.

How is their relationship any different than a man/woman childless couple? Why does the later couple get to decide to call themselves married but the former can't?

their relationship may not be.

the argument if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck doesn't hold water with me.