Nov
08
Rather than re-defining the word marriage, why don’t gays create their own word to define homosexual unions?
By
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That has been the traditional definition from the beginning of time. Why not create a new word to define homosexual unions and live happily ever after in harmony with the silent majority?
10 Comments
November 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Marriage doesn’t belong to YOU, nor does it belong to any one group of people, religious or otherwise.
I define marriage as a legal, spiritual, sexual, and emotional commitment between to consenting adults who are in love with each other.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am
do you mean a word, that means Gay?
are you suggesting that my marriage is worthless?
if you are so equal, why do you want to be so different?
November 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
OK, then let’s call it “Super Civil Unions”. It has all the rights and benefits of legal marriage but a different name……..
I would be ok with that. I don’t care what it’s called.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Separate but Equal…
Let’s see, where has that NOT worked before..?
November 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
why don’t blacks build their own schools? why don’t they build their own drinking fountains? separate but equal is anything BUT equal. if you don’t like the concept of gay marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same gender
November 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Although I dont agree with your opinion, I agree with this slightly.
But you have to understand…
There is something like that.
e.e
Civil Union. And who wants that shxt?
Nobody.
Eh, and plus, America is a free country. :]
We can do w/e the hell we want. <3
*Sigh* ‘Cept for marriage.. :/
[[♥]]
November 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“Mawedge has bwhen defined as man woman blah blah” since when? By a religion? I define you as an idiot, but don’t worry, definitions can change, or be wrong.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
It may surprise you to learn that for centuries marriage was reserved for the elite. Multiple wives were common, concubines, some cultures had gay marriage all over the world.
Law is written regarding marriage already. Come up with a new word and you have to come up with new laws. No, not cost effective. Until the time orientation is taken out of the marriage equation (in regards to law) gays will always be treated as second class citizens.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Why can’t it just be MARRIAGE? If you consider UNION, you might as well be down SOUTH!
November 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Isn’t another term for it “domestic partnership”?
With all due respect, I disagree with your opinion so profoundly that I don’t even know where to begin. It just makes my head hurt!