Obama stops defending DOMA

I really don't understand the point or signifgance of changing the term for marriage. The fact of the matter is the world calls it that, and there are plenty of religious groups that accept gay marriage. There seems to be this assumption that christanity is the only running force opposing gay marriage. It's not. Other religions have issues, and even secular individuals oppose it. It's silly to base changing a name off of one small sect that isn't ok with it.

While yes the term might cause a knee jerk reaction in some, they are in the minority, and further changing the name isn't going to change much. If anything it will upset more people, then it would to bring people around to the idea.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I really don't understand the point or signifgance of changing the term for marriage. The fact of the matter is the world calls it that, and there are plenty of religious groups that accept gay marriage. There seems to be this assumption that christanity is the only running force opposing gay marriage. It's not. Other religions have issues, and even secular individuals oppose it. It's silly to base changing a name off of one small sect that isn't ok with it.

While yes the term might cause a knee jerk reaction in some, they are in the minority, and further changing the name isn't going to change much. If anything it will upset more people, then it would to bring people around to the idea.
Click to expand...

Yup. Islam is actually a lot more violent against gays than Christianity. I think its just not as noticed, because many of the places (Africa anyone?) where its happening has very little media coverage.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I really don't understand the point or signifgance of changing the term for marriage. The fact of the matter is the world calls it that, and there are plenty of religious groups that accept gay marriage. There seems to be this assumption that christanity is the only running force opposing gay marriage. It's not. Other religions have issues, and even secular individuals oppose it. It's silly to base changing a name off of one small sect that isn't ok with it.

While yes the term might cause a knee jerk reaction in some, they are in the minority, and further changing the name isn't going to change much. If anything it will upset more people, then it would to bring people around to the idea.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that it wouldn't make it easier for the legislation to be passed through because peoples mirror neurons wouldn't start firing off when the word marriage came into it.
 
Same-sex marriage is legal in New Zealand, but it is known as a civil union which offends me to a certain extent. I would much rather it be known simply as a marriage.
 
Sali said:
I'm not convinced that it wouldn't make it easier for the legislation to be passed through because peoples mirror neurons wouldn't start firing off when the word marriage came into it.
Click to expand...

Mirror neurons have almost no effect in this. You really think a semantical term with something as controversial and polarized as gay marriage is going to affect it that strongly? It's not like people are uninformed or have completely baseless opinions. Mind you it's up for debate how "well informed" someone is, but most who have an opinion on this feel they are well informed, and are not going to change their views just because of a name change. You might sway a small minority by this, but that is it.
 
either:
mandate that in the eyes of the government that all rights and powers granted to "marriage" be transfered to Civil Unions and the all past marriage licenses be considered Civil Unions.

or

Tell the church to suck it up and spend their money on something truly meaningful to society...
 
Kavalan said:
either:
mandate that in the eyes of the government that all rights and powers granted to "marriage" be transfered to Civil Unions and the all past marriage licenses be considered Civil Unions.

or

Tell the church to suck it up and spend their money on something truly meaningful to society...
Click to expand...

And or this.
 
saru said:
Also though, the large amount of the gay society is heterophobic. I don't say that to be funny, I am serious. I myself am still slightly heterophobic, (though I'm getting better), so we must be careful when we are going through these defining eras, to watch where we step.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but i feel like for most of the past 2000 years, gay people have been stoned to death by the hetero community so they have some grounds for being heterophobic. I view it like empathizing with African-Americans who hate white people because of the past. I'm not black but I understand that they have a reason for hating white people.

Sometimes I too get sick of hetero relationships though and some of the people that are in that community. Some of them, like my dad, say that hetero people have been oppressed by the gays. A month later he said that he "loved" them so like whatever and stuff.
 
Kavalan said:
either:
mandate that in the eyes of the government that all rights and powers granted to "marriage" be transfered to Civil Unions and the all past marriage licenses be considered Civil Unions.

or

Tell the church to suck it up and spend their money on something truly meaningful to society...
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts :).
 
How high is the divorce rate in America? Marriage is hardly that "holy" of a tradition to many people in the respect that 'marriage conservationalists' want to portray it as. At the nitty-gritty, it's people being homophobic and bigoted. As Satya said, Civil Unions don't have to be recognized by other states. If we completely ignore how unfair that it is that gays are not allowed to call their marriage a marriage if they so want to and if we ignore the idea that the wants of some conservative majority do not outweigh the legal rights of a minority to fair protection under law, if there was a push to have Civil Unions forcibly recognized in all states by the federal government, I'm willing to bet my life savings that these same conservatives that are "protecting" marriage would cry out against the federal government trampling state's rights. In the end, it's bigotry, even if they won't all come out and say it.


(joke's on anyone who takes up my bet because I don't have a life savings!)
 
Or we could just do away with marriage all together because it's silly. I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, do you really have to be "official" and have external conformation.
 
bickelz said:
Or we could just do away with marriage all together because it's silly. I mean if you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, do you really have to be "official" and have external conformation.
Click to expand...

there are legal precedences and entitlements that go with the officialness
 
Kavalan said:
there are legal precedences and entitlements that go with the officialness
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew I should have mentioned that but regardless, either everyone wanting to get married should get the legal precedences or no one should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top