Equal Rights for the LGBT Community?

[Jango_Fred]

Where is "marriage" defined as a union between a man and a woman? I am not challenging the claim.... I am just curious as to where this definition exists?

I completely support this except for the word "marriage" which I believe defines "a union between a man and a woman" not "a union between two people." I have nothing against a homosexual union... they can f up their lives however they want. But I disagree with it being called a marriage.

[Corpse]

Definitions are man-made and there are many variations for every word there is. Because of this, basing your argument against equal rights for gays etc. on a definition is a weak position to put yourself in.

[Voodoochild]

The definition of marriage has changed over time :P

[Jango_Fred]

But the claim being made that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is based on a definition. It is not the definition that I need to validate my point... it is the origin of ANY possible definition.

[Corpse]

Pooland.

[Jango_Fred]

I concur

[toad]

Definitions of words change over time. Sometimes it takes a few generations to die before ingrain bigotry goes with them. Just have to keep pushing.

[Dad]

The definition of marriage has changed over time :P

Yes, now it means "the state of being in perpetual hell".

[WD-40]

Let them marry. They should be as miserable as the rest of us....

Amen to that.

No words were better spoken! I'll second that 'Amen to that'!

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Ok, lets try this. What is "marriage"? Simply put, the status quo is that marriage is a civil and/or religious union between a man and a woman, recognized by the state and other binding civil rules (contracts). More precisely, the state and civil authorities recognize the two individuals as a culpable single entity (a type of Corporation) for purposes of any legal claims either for or against them. The benefits and limitations of a marriage is nearly identical to that of a Corporation. This is where most marriage legalities come from. Communal property and taxes and responsibility for expenses and debts.

Like a Corporation, marriage requires more than one person to enter into a legally binding covenant with a defined goal to produce some good or service. That is where it evolved from. A man and a woman joined themselves to the purpose of having children together. It would be necessary to have Corporate like legal protection and rules in such a case. Ownership of a child is a clearly important subject and so a mechanism establishing joint ownership (marriage) is a logical construct.

If that is the definition of and origin of "marriage" is it necessarily a right? In the U.S. marriage is regulated by the individual states with the explicit understanding that, on the basis of our Federal society, all states of the union will honor the legally binding contract of any other. Any state may impose its guidelines on the applicants. They may grant, or not the legal status as each state legislature sees fit. If it is theoretically possible to deny the sanction of a legal marriage completely, I would have to determine that, just like health-care, marriage is NOT a right we are all entitled to.

Further, is it necessary for a homosexual couple to have communal legal protection and call it "marriage"? The only reason to is that the question of mutual recognition of "marriage" is a settled legal question in the U.S. As stated before, if one state certifies a union as a legal "marriage" then all other states are compelled to recognize the union and grant all legal protections and benefits thereunto. Call it something else and there is a chance that it won't hold the same weight in another state.

Bottom line, this is a mushy mess. I had an xfire conv with Mandy earlier on the subject and in that conversation we addressed the REAL issue. This topic is a red herring, (though an important topic in itself) and does not address the underlying problem which causes this mess.

Homosexuality is an abnormality in the human species that we don't understand. The species is designed for male and female to be attracted to one another for sexual procreation. The fact that for some reason this goes wrong for some people is disturbing. If it were possible to find out why it happens, much of the social issues could be abated. Too many people feel that it is something "catchy" and will shun/ostracize or out right persecute anyone with this abnormality. Added to this is the problem of religious dogma and doctrine which appears to sanction persecution (against our worldly laws) and the problem is manifestly more severe.

That is the REAL issue that makes gay marriage a topic for discussion at all.

My stance. Homosexuality is abnormal. I don't think it is disease like and "catchy" so I am not afraid of people who are gay. They should no more be shunned then someone with dwarfism, or who is deaf or blind. Do they have the same "right" to marry as a hetero couple? Technically no. Should we change the law? Not if it pisses that many people off. In the end if it is not a "right", then majority rules. Get people to stop being afraid of you and then you can get all the bennies others get.