Why do people find my beliefs so offensive?

[chadbag]

You're honestly trying to project "thousands of years of history" onto a word that, itself is no more than 500 years old?

no, you seem to be the one stuck on the word and its etymological meaning.

The very fact that you see two people comitting to one another and calling it marriage (which is actually what heterosexual marriages do, no more, no less) a devaluation of "your" institution positively reeks of elitism.

No, unfortunately you don't seem to have a clue what marriage is. Heterosexual marriages are much more than that.

I would submit to you, sir, that by pretending heterosexual marriage carries greater status, you diminish the meaning of it to simple social grandstanding and an utter betrayal of the process's intentions.

The attempt by those who only see marriage as a civil contract or commitment to one another obfuscate the matter and deny the history and "baggage" that marriage carries with it as a societal institution, and a lack of understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is more than a civil contract and a commitment. It is a societal institution that came about for the need to raise a new generation and it carries that with it, no matter what you call it, and no matter what you claim about it or want to equate it to.

The average person understands this innately though they cannot explain it in scholarly fashion. This is why the average person is against so-called "gay marriage." (In most states solid majorities of the populace are against this co-opting of the marriage institution though much fewer numbers are against gay civil unions carrying the same legal benefits and responsibilities. It has nothing to do with homophobia though that is what the so-called gay rights zealots and the Hollywood Elite would have you believe.) Because marriage has a much deeper meaning and in general society cannot be co-opted for gay co-habitation or gay civilly contracted unions. No matter what the PC police say.

It has nothing to do with the actual word "marriage." The same argument could be made in Germany where the word is totally different ("Ehe")

That said, we are obviously at an impasse and I see no way we can pursue further discourse without devolving into decidedly uncivil conversation. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Heavy Metal]

No shit.

All anarchy is is a placeholder for a strong man, an oligarch or a tyrant to fill the void.

It isn't freedom any more than a train wreck is freedom.

[HES]

Marriage's purpose is for the creation and protection of children. That is a historical and societal fact.

I disagree. Reproduction is not dependent on marriage. So biology plays no role. As its been pointed out, hetereosexual, monogamous pair bonding is the exception in the animal kingdom, not the rule. Marriage was actually created for the purposes of establishing certain legal and by extension inheritance rights between individuals who wanted to have a long term relationship.

[chadbag]

Back to the OP

Unfortunately some people "hate" that which they do not understand or which they see as being in opposition to their beliefs.

I hate "liberalism" as practiced by the leftist elites in our country. I don't hate the people, just their beliefs. They are anathema to what I believe. I have plenty of friends who self identify as liberals and we get along great. We just keep political discussions to a minimum (they happen, but we don't go down that path deeply).

Even those people with whom I have had impassioned discussions here on M4C would all be welcome in my home and I would go shooting with them. I think most all of you guys are probably pretty decent folks (even if misguided on a few issues )

[chadbag]

I disagree. Reproduction is not dependent on marriage.

You misunderstand what I said. I never said you had to have marriage in order to be able to reproduce. What I said was that societies developed marriage because it benefitted society to do so, in that it provided a better chance of the next generations survival.

So biology plays no role.

Biology actually plays a big role. In that reproduction is a biological process and that process ends up in offspring, which was the purpose of marriage -- to make a better environment so that your offspring had a better chance at surviving and providing for the next generation of your tribe / family group / society.

Reproduction does not limit itself to marriage. Marriage was made by society though due to reproduction and the advantage it gave in making reproduction successful long term in providing for the next generation.

As its been pointed out, hetereosexual, monogamous pair bonding is the exception in the animal kingdom, not the rule.

Not really. You find lots of both sorts, monogamous and non-monogamous pairings in the animal kingdom. Some species are quite devoted to their baby partners and some aren't. It is not really germane to the discussion. I am not discussing homosexuality vs heterosexuality.

Marriage was actually created for the purposes of establishing certain legal and by extension inheritance rights between individuals who wanted to have a long term relationship.

That came later and was also due to its benefits to society. It is an extension of what I said. You need the kids to have people to inherit and carry on your name/station/stuff.

[ALCOAR]

Holy smokes...one side of the argument uses three words essentially in every single reply.

We get it I guess....it's all about,

1. Institution...although this Institution only exists in the mind of some, the righteous.

2. History....Some kinda really old historical tradition that we won't even worry about fact checking as this info prob. is in the same location as how Jesus walked on water, and how a single boat could save the human and animal races after a worldwide tsunami (guess they remembered to put institution on the Ark)

3. Family....ah yes, can't have family if your gay.

Please save us all the extra spinning of these same three talking points...just reply with Institution, History, and Family.

[BrianS]

Relevant to marriage as an institution meant for the protection of children, that may be a good reason for the institution, but being a straight married couple doesn't make you good parents any more than being a gay married couple precludes you from being ones.

I would be very skeptical of any conclusions regarding quality of parenting at this point, unless your point is merely to point out the obvious (that there are some bad heterosexual parents and some good gay ones). I don't think children of gay couples who have grown into adulthood have been around in large enough numbers to have a good sample for comparative studies the way there are for say two versus single parent households. Not sure I would even trust the conclusions then as it is such a politically sensitive topic, much like gun control, abortion, and other issues you can find studies on that are highly manipulated by the opposing sides to come to their preexisting conclusions.

PS Kinda funny (or sad) that a thread bemoaning that people no longer have a live and let live attitude degenerated into a back and forth on a topic that people on both sides are constantly fighting about ad nauseum.

Why dont we compromise and have civil unions called Gayages for gay people.

[ChicagoTex]

Why dont we compromise and have civil unions called Gayages for gay people.

Because we don't do Jim Crowe anymore. It's either the same or it's not, if people are so hung up on the word "marriage" then heterosexual marriages should be legally reclassified as Civil Unions.

[Gutshot John]

I would be very skeptical of any conclusions regarding quality of parenting at this point, unless your point is merely to point out the obvious (that there are some bad heterosexual parents and some good gay ones).

Well yes it was intended to be somewhat obvious as it seems that people are going out of their way to avoid the obvious. Straight parents pose at least the same risk to their children as gay ones and in my experience probably more.

The point was that if the purpose of marriage was the protection and rearing of children than gay parents are at least as competent in this regard as straight parents. From my perspective gay parents (and especially ones that chose adoption) have to take it more seriously lest someone use their shortcomings to judge others.

When you hear in the news about parents who murder their child or sells them for some crack or does some other horrific thing like molestation, you never hear about them being gay. While it probably happens, let's not pretend that the point of heterosexual marriage offers any guarantee of a good or even better life than gay marriage. Sure two men can't have a biological kid, but they can certainly adopt and why is that "less" valid if we apply child protection as a standard.

The point of marriage is to legally recognize a contract between two consenting adults. While the state can and does regulate who gets married those regulations/standards change according to circumstances. The only justification I've seen here for forbidding gay marriage is "history", "institution" and "family" as Trident says.

Lots of things were done in history that aren't done anymore.

There is no threat at all to the institution, no one will be "less" married because two homosexuals take vows in front of God and everyone.

That leaves family and as is obvious, hetero parents are as likely to be horrible as anyone else. You have to judge that on a case by case basis. And given the numbers of children that need adoption because of failed hetero parenting and a lack of suitable hetero couples willing to adopt, why shouldn't gays be allowed the same rights if the point is to "protect" and "rear" children.

Gay marriage hurts no one.

[Skyyr]

Because we don't do Jim Crowe anymore. It's either the same or it's not, if people are so hung up on the word "marriage" then heterosexual marriages should be legally reclassified as Civil Unions.

Have you not been reading anything at all in these last 5 pages? By many conservative opinions, heterosexuals are perfectly fine with being reclassified as some other type of union, provided they're not lumped in with homosexual unions and that there's a similar yet different term used to describe homosexual unions. It's the homosexuals who want all marriages called the same - they aren't. That's what this entire debate is about.

Chadbag has pointed out why heterosexual marriages have been glorified and preserved throughout history; his assessments are dead on, having studied the history of marriage myself (albeit somewhat briefly). It is for those reasons that heterosexual marriage requires to be separate from other marriages and they from it.

I'm perfectly fine with having marriage renamed to "heterosexual union" and homosexuals having a "homosexual union." That falls perfectly in line with the "different but equal" philosophy that our country was founded on. What I'm not ok with is some transvestite wanting to lump their own perverse relationship in with mine and insist on calling them the same.