Gay marriage?

[Clementine]

Why has the term "gay marriage" been coined? Isn't it just marriage?

I had lunch today, but if a gay person has lunch is it called gay lunch?

I parked my car today. When a gay person parks their car is it gay parking?

How silly!

[Jack]

Specificity is sometimes necessary. We would also differentiate between Christian marriage rites and Muslim marriage rites. Laws are not being considered banning marriage but rather specifically gay marriage. At one point in our history society disapproved of interracial marriage. Now we no longer need to differentiate between marriage and interracial marriage. Eventually the same will be true for gay marriage. Marriage will mean the legal coupling of two adults regardless of race or gender.

[Ahavahi]

I agree with Jack, but I had a pretty good laugh at the idea of a gay lunch. Brilliant.

[Dieval]

Specificity is sometimes necessary.

They're differentiating their marriage, while trying to make it the same as a regular marriage....seems a little bass-ackwards to me..

Laws are not being considered banning marriage but rather specifically gay marriage.

That's all in how you look at it...They're not "banning" gay marriage, but rather not allowing a very small minority to alter the definition of marriage to suit their own wants.

[lsbskins1]

They're differentiating their marriage, while trying to make it the same as a regular marriage....seems a little bass-ackwards to me..

That's all in how you look at it...They're not "banning" gay marriage, but rather not allowing a very small minority to alter the definition of marriage to suit their own wants.

We're not "banning" blacks from receiving an education, we are simply not redifining the public in public education to include blacks. How stupid does that sound?

[Dieval]

We're not "banning" blacks from receiving an education, we are simply not redifining the public in public education to include blacks. How stupid does that sound?

Very, because race ≠ sexual preference.

[lsbskins1]

Very, because race ≠ sexual preference.

I'll take the chance that thinking individuals will see the relevance. I'm not out to change your mind, I'm out to make sure you don't change many, if any, minds.

[Dieval]

I'll take the chance that thinking individuals will see the relevance. I'm not out to change your mind, I'm out to make sure you don't change many, if any, minds.

Nice insult....they always add to the integrity of your argument

[Clementine]

They're differentiating their marriage, while trying to make it the same as a regular marriage....seems a little bass-ackwards to me..

That's all in how you look at it...They're not "banning" gay marriage, but rather not allowing a very small minority to alter the definition of marriage to suit their own wants.

To suit what they want? They are adults who are in love and want to marry. Isn't that what everyone who marries wants? How is if a bad thing to include everyone?

[Clementine]

Very, because race ≠ sexual preference.

Huh?
We are all the same race. Human!!

[lsbskins1]

Nice insult....they always add to the integrity of your argument

The integrity of my argument stands without additions. Marriage exists as a civil and a religious institution. The existence of civil marriages do not "redefine" marriage as recognized by any religious institution. The Catholic, or any other, church may decline to recognize the validity of any marriage it chooses to decline to recognize. The religious integrity of the institution within the confines of any religious tradition is not effected by the civil recognition of the institution. Arguing that it is or that the civil recognition of a marriage between two men or two women somehow effects the status of marriage as a religious institution is disingenuous. Each individual church still gets to define what it finds acceptable. A church can still view a civilly dissolved marriage as "intact in the eyes of the Lord" or it can view any preformed marriage as "non-existent in the eyes of the Lord". Nothing, what-so-ever, gets redefined from the stand point of any religious institution. Any preacher or congregation is free to preform or recognize as they see fit within the confines of their belief system.

Banning the legal, civil recognition of a marriage between same sex partners preserves nothing the church is not free to preserve on it's own for its own believers and negatively impacts the life of gay and lesbian individuals. It is wrong.

You are free to live in a way that I see as wrong in this case because in making that choice for yourself, you do not harm me. In forcing me to adhere to what you see as right, you do harm me and you do so with no compelling interest. That is a double bad in my book. If you do not like that characterization, so sorry.

[grandpa]

The integrity of my argument stands without additions.
Marriage exists as a civil and a religious institution.

His real message, of course, is that if you are homosexual (or any other group he doesn't like), you are just a lame mistake of a person, and nothing more. You are not entitled to equal respect, because he says so. Marriage has been a joke for a long time, either way.

Grandpa h.