Do You Support Marriage for All?

VintageNarcissa Love that graphic! lol

Fefe32 it's good to see another nonreligious person here...agree with you totally

Fefe32 from what i understand, the church didn't used to be involved in marriages. it was a family affair and strictly business.

Jazmine

"or let the religious people have marriage and the state have civil unions."

I don't know. This may be a slippery slope. If a heterosexual couple are atheist, would their union be considered a civil union then? I know at least two couples who fall into this category.

I do like your point there! Yes if you an atheist then you would not want a marriage and would preferr it to be called a civil union. In fact this should have been done long ago once the idea of atheism came into play...The separation of the 2 is a good idea. Though I would love it to be one. I think so because I am more and more learning each day to love and respect marriage through my love of God. I have always thought that... The state has a job to represent and aid to everyone's need in this country, but the church(which is the people that believe in God) has alright to retain their point of view for whatever reason they have and if they think the union of marriage the way they know it should be maintained as man and woman they have the freedom, Thank God, to do so. I love everyone and God loves everyone but not their actions, I had to come to grips with that when I think of genocide in Rwanda, Europe and enslavement of African. I will try in my power to look at people higher than me at all times.

nyawJazmine honey atheist been around way before religion start and it's going to still be here when it's gone

please do not call me "honey" especially when you say something that contradicts what I say. Because I am not very verse on atheist history... I cannot comment on it. I do say I should have read many people's comments before I replied here, because mostly everyone does not share my opinion...:-) that is okay, we all have that right...At least I know where most are at with this topic... keep the articles coming.

nyaw lol are you seriously getting uptight because I called you honey? honey (Oops) it's called an expression. I would rather be called honey than to be called a lot of other names I will not be mentioning on beyond black and white.

sparel I did not want to reply..but here I go... I just do not like the expression in the context you are using it. I do not respond to anyone on here like that unless I am comfortable with the person and like the dialogue .. maybe I am a little uptight :-) and maybe that is just how you are, calling people honey left and right... just that this the first time seeing you on here... It is great to see more people jumping in the dialogue. I would rather on here be replied to than honey... lol... Hope to see you more on here, I am a newbie to...

Jazmine you know as an Atheist I wouldn't mind a civil union. I'm sure others don't think like I do but civil unions are ok me...I think my relationship with my husband would be defined between him and I not but government.

sparelJazmine I have an Atheist friend who had a civil union and she and her husband call each other husband and wife. No one can stop a couple from using the term husband and/or wife once the couple are legally bonded, not even a gay couple. It's very easy to say, we were married in a civil union. People are going to end up using whatever term they very well please regardless of what the government says.

VintageNarcissaJazmine I agree...who knows lol I might still call my husband "my boyfriend" when we are married. lol j/k but you know something I wouldn't mind is the whole who get's the last name...I would preferably like to keep my last name...I would love for my husband to have my last name instead

sparelJazmine People get really creative with last names when they get married. It's not uncommon for couples to combine their last names to create their very own. John Villa married Jane Nova and they come Mr. and Mrs. Villanova. I don't know if I could do that, both me and my boyfriend's last names are far too ethnic to make it an easy task. Personally, if we ever got married, I want to just tack his last name onto mind and mostly go by First Maiden Married name, no hyphen. And depending on the occasion I would probably just get lazy and use his name, lol. I knew a couple where the man took the woman's name. Not to be a wet blanket, but when they divorced, he actually kept her last name. For business reasons mostly, he explained, because he had a very ethnic black name and his wife was Asian.

VintageNarcissaJazmine I actually have an awesome name and the guys that I usually go for does not. They have really bad European names (lol I shouldn't talk I have a European last name as well being born here in America) but still they have long irritating last names. If I were to combine the two it was just be bad lol. I think it's pretty sweet that he took her last name...there is not to many blacks with Ali, or Lee, and chow as their lastname

Bellydancer What? How do you get that? Those don't even add up.

Bellydancer This is why the ban against gays getting married will not stand the test of time and will eventually be the law of the land. Opponents to marriage equality will continue echo the same arguments made when blacks and white were trying to get married. The exact same. You can't say that banning black/white marriages was racist but banning gays being married ISN'T homophobic and unfair.

PearlLili2009 What I was trying to say is that if gays are allowed to marry then other people will say well I should be able to marry more than one spouse and our society is not set up for that. The original purpose of marriage has changed over the years I know and I do think you should be able to purchase property and set up a household with whom you want but marriage in a sense is still governed by religious body and most religions do not accept gay unions.

BellydancerLili2009 Gay marriage and polygamy are two different things, how could a union between two people encourage polygamy. The purpose of marriage hasn't changed much, now its just about letting gays marry, nothing to do with polygamy. You seem homophobic. Religion has nothing to do with gay marriage rights.

Bellydancer This argument makes no sense, the two issues aren't related in any way. If marriage is between a man and a woman, then why can't one man marry two women? You don't need of gay marriage to expand the definition of "traditional" marriage to allow multiple simultaneous unions. In fact, if anything, all modern religeous texts include support for polygamy, so if modern marriage is based on that premise then we should all be supporting polygamy.

PearlMark_H pearl I am not homophobic and that seems to be the word that gays like to use when nobody wants to support them in all of what they want to do. Personally they can do what they want I won't be marching for them. Gay men need to work on their treatment of lesbians and minorities.

Especially gay white men who think gay only means them.

These types of marriages are not a normal part of our society if one group receives special treatment than other groups of people will demand the right to marry. In some states polygamy is an issue although it is kept underground but some groups like the Mormons and the Muslims are demanding the US to recognize those marriages. In the ancient world brothers and sisters married, cousins married, that shit today would seem repugnant to some people. Are they going to bring that back?

Nope gay marriage rights is not my battle.

BellydancerMark_H

You continue to make so sense. It's fine, if it's what you believe then, whatever. I just don't understand how you can tie marriage between two people into some how promoting polygamy.

PearlMark_H Not trying to start an arguement with you Pearl but if you support one type of "special"marriage then you have to support all types of "special" marriages. Those types of marriages are not normal in our society. You either get it or don't !

BellydancerMark_H When I replied to you before that was ending the conversation. YOU either get it or you don't.

BellydancerPearlMark_H

"Those types of marriages are not normal in our society."

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/10/the-gay-marriageinterracial-marriage-theme-surfaces-in-california-campaign.html

JazmineMark_H

THAT was so WOW, did you see those quotes? I threw up in my Jazmine!

I am so disgusted by bigots! I didn't know how people felt about interracial dating, this is SO similar to gay marriage.

Those quotes struck a cord with me, they were so hateful and bigoted.

I can't even speak.

Thank you for posting that link, it just proved how bigoted people are.

Raineyjay Is that the president's stand on the issue? I can't remember.

Monique8 best definition I've seen so far.

Monique8 It just reminds me of the quote, "People should not be afraid of their government, a government should be afraid of its people." The whole reason anyone on capitol hill has a job right now (while millions of the rest of us don't) is because we came together as a group to make a nation (in the most general sense of the term). Hell, if everyone up and decided to move out of the country one day, all the government would be left with is their policies.

Nonya "Regardless of associations, as others have noted, religion is predated by and does not "own" marriage."

I'm talking about the 'word' marriage, not all of the responsibilities that go along with it.

I think that we can reserve the word 'marriage' for a ceremony performed in a church and 'civil union' for a ceremony performed anywhere else. I think the state should only recognize civil unions though; so a couple that gets married in a church still has to get their union recognized by the state in order to be legal in the eyes of the law.

People can also also to opt to skip the marriage and the civil union and just have a commitment ceremony. With a commitment ceremony they can then pick and choose a la carte which rights and responsibilities they want to take on with respect to the other person by signing specific contracts and making other arrangements on their own.

I also don't agree that just because other countries have taken a certain route, that the US has to take the same route.

Jamila

In reference to word only: While its just a word to me, the fact the use of this word means a lot to others is enough for me to support its use for all whether in church/mosque/temple or at city hall.

Per legalization: Not saying do it just because others have, I'm saying that if a very politically, socially diverse group of over 20 countries have legalized it in word and form, there's is high validity to it - as of now, marriage for all is on nationwide in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and at least another 10 countries have proposals to legislate it in the works. Meanwhile, it is legal only some parts of the US; I think this is something that should be implemented nationwide.

Nonya "Per legalization: Not saying do it just because others have, I'm saying that if a very politically, socially diverse group of over 20 countries have legalized it in word and form, there's is high validity to it"

I think you mean to say "credibility" not "validity. While I do think the "everyone else is doing it, so perhaps we should too" argument has it's place, I can say I support that argument in this particular case.

But I do understand where you are coming from.

Jamila

I didn't use "credibility" because it might imply that I'm saying big/popular nation X is doing it, then so it must be good.

I mean validity in the sense that if groups of entities that do not necessarily agree on other major stuff like politics/governance agree on this, then there must be good reasoning behind it, lets examine exactly why we are opposing it and addressing it in such a fragmented way.

Islandgirl

"Marriage existed way before Christianity was even a twinkle in the eye of men. Some times I get the feeling that christians forget that once they too were discriminated against for just being."

AMEN.

Jay from Philly It's another of those distracter issues, like Evil China with Inhumane Factories and Evil India with IT Outsourcing. Almost no one seems to notice that the Evil done in each case was done by the US CEO oligarchy.

Law WanxiJay from Philly Whenever I hear a Right winger pull gay marriage or abortion out of their "hot button" hat, I'm thinking, "that's all well and good but I haven't had a raise in 3 years but the exec committee gets to keep their bonuses, the president of the company makes 700% more than I do, and the cost of living is rising exponentially." Crickets....

Law WanxiJay from Philly And I no longer get a 401K match because I should feel lucky to even have this job (and I get health insurance, too!) Oh well. I guess that's what I get for not going to harvard business school and/or being born into old money.