Same-Sex Marriage

I don't see why there would be an issue with calling it marriage, it is the same thing, just a couple of the same sex getting married, why does it need to be anything different? Getting married means you want the same legal rights as a heterosexual marriage, so why call it something else?

 

Marriage is marriage. That's all there is to say.

 

There's a law for that

 

i wonder what the first marriage was like. prob sucked

 

Absolutely YES. The whole point of calling it "marriage" is that most state laws already define the rights of "married" spouses. They would apply to gay couples without having all of the states to rewrite all the laws, which would be a major undertaking. It would also include private contracts and employment related contracts and benefits which apply to "married" couples. This is a BIG deal from a financial and legal standpoint.

The emotional side of the equation is not as important to the public interests in general, but is very important to some of the people getting married, specifically when their religions can't legally marry them in a particular state because of state law.

In all honesty, EVERY state should be issuing licenses for "civil unions" defining the legal rights of the two parties entering into that legal arrangement of joining together in a life partnership, whether hetero or homo in terms of the parties' genders. But, because all the legal precedences as well as tons of lines of black-letter law have been linked to "marriage", it is too late to go back and do it right from the beginning.

 

I'm getting married to a man and I'm even wearing a wedding dress.

 

Isn't an Erdős number earned by co-authoring a paper with somebody who has an Erdős number?

 

Not calling same sex marriage marriage then we are suggesting that we are different to straight couples and should be treated differently.

 

Who voted no?

 

I feel like for the sake of simplicity, call it a marriage. Regardless of the gender of either party, functionally and legally and conceptually it's still the same. The only real argument for giving gay marriage its own word is not even a valid one, stems from prejudice and discrimination, and is really just another way of denying them fair treatment and equal rights. It's like saying, "Well, we'll let them think they can get married and that it's simply called something else, but we puritanical bigots know the truth."

 

Marriage is a sacred union between people, no matter what gender they identify as.

 

And if it is sacred, in the religious/spiritual sense, I'd argue that is more reason the government shouldn't be involved with it.

I originally would have said "revoke marriage for all, civil unions for all", except our legal language is so tied up using the word "marriage". So there isn't much point in going that route, as it will just allow bad things to continue happening for a longer period of time. Right now, I would argue that no religious definition of marriage should be enshrined in law as an endorsement of the religion(s) that use that definition.

 

Yes, I feel it should just be referred to as marriage, rather than 'same sex marriage' . If we refer to it as marriage then it's the same for everyone. When we refer to it as 'same sex marriage' it does two things, in my opinion: it marks it out as something 'different' ( from 'different' it's an easy step to 'less than'); and it lacks inclusiveness as it makes no allowance for trans* or intersex people. When marriage equality was brought in here the law was actually referred to as 'the marriage equality bill' rather than 'same sex marriage. Here, any two consenting adults, who are not within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, can marry regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity and for me, that's the way it should be.

On a side note I also find it interesting that in the first 12 months of Marriage Equality in New Zealand the number of Civil Unions plummeted, but they have not gone away completely. This provides an alternative for couples who want formal recognition but who find marriage to be a term loaded with baggage they don't want.

 

"It's Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve! Also, they were both white, so no interracial marriage. Also, no marrying anyone who isn't your rib-buddy."

 

Why not?

It's amusing that people say marriage is defined as one man and one woman, yet that definition isn't traditional; especially if we're speaking Biblical as people like Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines.

That said, time is proving it's evolving and it's not "traditional" and hasn't in ages. I also see it like this; as long as all participants are of legal age and consenting, I don't see a problem with it--that includes polyamourous relationships.

 

Why does it have to be sacred? Can't atheists get married?

 

Hmm I didn't vote because the question has me thinking. I'm not sure, now that you ask the question. I'm not even sure if *marriage* is even necessary. Do we even need this institution in this day and age? Having said that, I am of course completely for the right of any adult of any gender or sexual orientation, being free to marry any other adult, of any gender or sexual orientation, if they so choose. I'm just not sure if I see the necessity of it for myself. I think that if you really love someone, you don't need a formal contract to seal it. I can foresee a day when marriage might end up being regarded as something of an anachronism, actually.

 

Uh....yeah.