And Gay Marriage Has Actually Hurt Humanity In What Way(s)??

No. It's not arbitrary at all, it's very deliberate because a marriage is between one man and one woman. If you want the same benefits the government gave to married people (man and woman) why didn't you seek equality by demanding a union be created to mirror the legal benefits granted to the religious ceremony.

If you had done so, maybe others that do not have religious beliefs would seek that method as well.

 

Except it isn't, which is why 18 states have same sex marriage and it's recognized by the federal government. The arbitrary limitation based on gender is unconstitutional via the 14th amendment.

I'm not gay. But separate but equal is unconstitutional. And There is no reason to have 2 separate institutions. Marriage will do.

There's no reason to. Marriage is just fine.

 

I really don't wish to travel down the path that involved a ruling for segregation. The fact you have to point to this as reasoning for your actions proves to me this is more about making a point than receiving equality.

 

You can ignore legal realities that destroy your position if you wish, but they don't go away because you don't like them. Separate but equal is unconstitutional. So creating a separate institution that mirrors marriage is not only unconstitutional, but it's pointless. There's no reason they can't just get married.

 

Precisely. I don't see why they can't just be allowed to be married. What is the problem? A definition change? This is the only issue I have ever seen that anyone seems to be in total uproar over gradual changes in etymology. It's silliness.

 

Except for the point that marriage is defined as one man and one woman therefore excludes same sex couples. Gay marriage would mean happy marriage not same sex marriage.

 

You can ignore that to be married requires one of each sexes by definition and there is no such thing as gay marriage unless you change the definition to include same sex marriage. This is path you seek.

 

Nobody is trying to change how churches view marriage or how they perform them. We are trying to change how the government views marriage and who they allow into their legally binding contract of marriage.

The government and the church are two entirely different and separate institutions.

Nobody said these people had to get a legal marriage license after they have a wedding ceremony in a church. In fact they that part is totally optional. So by all means, if you want to treat your marriage as a totally personal and private covenant with God and not involve the government you may do so. Interestingly enough though most married couples want to acquire the marriage license.

Many movements have found opposition from religious communities, it was the same with interracial marriage. The Bible thumpers found scripture to make excuses for their bigotry and attempted to restrict and limit people's rights under the law. We shouldn't back down from what is RIGHT every time a religious entity disapproves. If we did that there would never be any progress in society, hell we'd still be believing the Earth was flat and also the center of the universe if this were the case.

Because of a change in etymology? Something that happens all the time? Or because we refuse to back down when people feel like their religious beliefs are being affronted by extending equal rights under the law to others?

 

Really? You want to argue semantics now? This really is just another example of how etymology changes over time. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/

 

The definition change is important because the roar from your gay rally's are marriage equality. The only way you can have your marriage equality is by changing what married is. Marriage in the context of a relationship is describing a religious ceremony and I believe this is where government is trying to change what a religious ceremony is. If this is important to me, and many others that otherwise don't oppose a union with equal benefits, why wouldn't you accept that?

 

I will point you to where the Virginia law defined exclusions from legal marriage, since the law is what we're discussing. This is the law that was overturned as a result of the Loving v. Virginia case:

http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/encounter/projects/monacans/Contemporary_Monacans/racial.html

If the law prevents it, then that prohibition is part of the legal definition of what constitutes a legal marriage. Pretending it isn't is ridiculous.

Agreed.

I find I must repeat myself: We are talking about the legal definition, and yes - we do think the legal definition should stop excluding marriages between persons of the same sex from recognition.

The law doesn't change the definition of the word outside the legal context, and the legal context is what is under discussion. Definitions of words outside the legal context are a separate matter. They are not set in stone. As I said before: language evolves as societal change is ongoing. Trying to stop that process is futile.

You can complain about that all you like, but your complaining isn't persuasive. The fact of the matter is that the definitions of words can and do change over time. There's actually field of study devoted to investigating the origins of words and how meaning changes over time: etymology. Language is not static. People frequently invent new uses for words, adapt standing definitions in application to other scenarios, or even come up with completely new words. You might not like it, but the evolution of language is messy and it doesn't always go in the direction you think it ought. Deal with it.

And the way they get every legal right and benefit is through legal recognition of a marriage. Case closed.

 

Quite frankly, their wishes don't matter when it comes to the freedom of others to believe differently and arrange their lives in accordance with their own beliefs. Nor should their religious beliefs dictate the law that governs people of many different beliefs. What you describe is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose one set of religious beliefs on everyone else through the tool of law.

Marriage isn't a ceremony. It's a commitment of a contractual nature. The legal recognition of marriage is about that contractual relationship, not wedding ceremonies.

When you say that "whether that ceremony is conducted at all should be determined by rules of that faith conducting the ceremony" this raises the question of why you object to same-sex couples marrying, since many do so according to the rules of their faith. Maybe this is still news to some people (though by now it really shouldn't be), but there are churches that support and conduct same-sex marriages.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is nothing more than your opinion. Kindly don't confuse your opinion with fact. Seriously not going to waste my time on the rest of the babble.

 

The religious ceremony is a matter of protected religious practice. Baking a cake is not.

A legal marriage is the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION. In other words, marriages are already civil unions. No need for separate terminology.

 

would there have been the AIDS epidemic if it wasn't for gay sex?

 

False statement. The exclusions have changed over time, as already shown.

1) The "Christian community" does not have some special right to kill any law that "upsets" them.
2) The "Christian community" does not have a single, united opinion on this issue.
3) It's not a different type of union where the law is concerned if all the legal rights are the same. You are fighting over a word, which is ridiculous.

 

For the simple fact that you can't make two things equal in the law by treating them differently. Withholding the word marriage from same-sex couples is treating them differently. Moreover, we're not going to call ourselves "civil unionized" the the word "married" works just fine. It seems you want the government to control what we call our marriages. I consider that a First Amendment issue.

 

You have to look at this within the full context. Civil unions only apply to state law, and they aren't portable from state to state. Very few states have civil unions, and they didn't necessarily recognize each others'. Federal law recognizes marriage. Now that the DOMA provision preventing recognition of same-sex marriages is gone, and since there is no federal law recognizing civil unions, it's not really so hard to see why marriage was pursued over civil unions.

It's also disingenuous to pretend that civil unions would be easier to achieve than same-sex marriage. Many who oppose same-sex marriage actually oppose ANY form of status, legal or social, for same-sex unions. That's exactly the case with those behind my state's amendment, which bans the recognition of same-sex relationships regardless of what they are called. And I have that straight from the horse's mouth - one of the proponents of the amendment.

 

Why not? Let me ask you. How well does the religious community in this country support gay marriage? The religious view matters because it is a religious ceremony being allowed to be something it is not.

If you seek the legally married benefits of a married couple offered by the government, you have every right under the 14th amendment via the equal protection clause to demand the same benefits for other types of couples. Using marriage as that path opened an instant objection from the religious. Demanding equal benefits as marriage via other union would have never been viewed as an attack on marriage and what it means.

The religious are not supporters of Gay marriage and I feel if equality for couples were really what we were seeking, civil union made much more sense than going after marriage.

 

Baloney. Where's your objection to opposite-sex couples who have marriage ceremonies that aren't "performed in a church with a man of God performing the ceremony". No, clearly your problem is with same-sex couples, not with government's involvement in marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

The benefits aren't "granted to the religious ceremony". There is no requirement that a couple even have a religious ceremony.

 

It's mainly opponents that started calling it "gay marriage" (sneer quotes included) as a means to differentiate the marriages of same-sex couples from opposite-sex couples. I don't use that terminology because I don't wish to perpetuate that idea that we should be kept separate and marginalized.

 

Yes, there would have been. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, which that epidemic predates.

 

Why can't you accept that there can be multiple definitions for one word?

Perhaps in the religious sense marriage will always be one man one woman, but in the legal sense it will mean one person married to another person, or even one person married to multiple persons if you want to go there.

Get over it. Nobody is trying to change how the church views marriage, only how the government views and treats marriage and the rights and benefits involved.

 

"The religious" are not just religious people that agree with you. There are plenty of religious people who don't.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Your question is irrelevant to this topic, in my view.

 

Except I just showed you that isn't the definition of marriage,

Which is why the legal issue is same sex marriage and not gay marriage. Gay marriage would be unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Except I just showed you that is not the case. Marriage is not defined as one mane and one woman.