Gay marriage

I have nothing against gay people and I think it's totally their choice. As far as the church goes, they're just way to conservative or afraid of anyone or anything that seems remotely like they want to do any "harm"

I found it funny how over here the average clause or whatever for a family was a mother and father and children. But in cases where one of the parents died or whatever they still say that a family can consist of one parent, so aren't technically gay marriages twice as good?

 

Unfortunately...semantics do matter. The whole argument really depends on the definition of marriage. "Marriage" in its common usage, is split into a 'legal' aspect, as well as a 'religious' aspect.

Legal issues (ie. marriage under the law): There shouldn't be any reason to restrict gays from having legal benefits of being 'registered as a family' (I'm deliberately creating new terminology).

Religious issues (ie. marriage by a priest or other official): Being gay is presumably 'against the rules' and several churches have taken a stance against such unions. These religions, treating them strictly as institutions under the law, have the right to 'deny membership' to people they see unfit. It's not any different from the "Chinese Engineering Society" denying me membership because I'm neither Chinese nor an Engineer. I don't fit their criteria and so am not granted membership.

Since the word "Marriage" has religious implications, then any gays who are 'Married' (specifically with that word) will be standing against the religious union.

Legalizing "Gay Marriage" infringes on the rights of those religious who find the term demeaning. Not legalizing the right for gays to have a similar type of lawful union, infringes on their rights.

It's lose/lose...

Unless...hint hint...we change the word. Would anyway care if we legalized Gay Unions? There would be no confusion as to which institution they belong to...think about it.

(Of course, this would mean even differing-sex couples who are married under the law (and not in say, a church) would also have to be referred to as "Unioned" and not Married...for this would be discriminatory.)

 

i think people are afraid, that gays will take over.

 

Whether or not that's true (I'm not arguing either way), I really don't believe that's the problem concerning gay marriage. Gay rights perhaps, but as I outlined above, I think it's the conflict between church and state on marriage...even for straight couples.

 

I think gay marriages are perfectly fine, our society is changing. And their is an increase in gay people( well those who admit to it) therefore marriage, even though it may be a religious term, should be perfectly acceptable. There are many people who do not believe in religion who still get married, so i don't see why a gay marriage cant be called a marriage either.

 

That's the thing...these 'lawful unions' fall subject to the same criticism that gay marriages would have. They shouldn't be called "Marriages" either.

I don't even think most religious people care about the terminology...personally, I just think that would be an elegant solution.

-----------------

I would however like to challenge the reasoning that 'because society is changing, it's ok.' Many unacceptable things are changing in society, such as a rapid increase in teenage pregnancy...so this isn't a good explanation for it being ok.

If it were, we'd accept teen pregnancy with open arms.