Why not call gay marriage "garriage" and be done with it?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I'm just upset that the state doesn't recognize my right to own Canadians as slaves, since the bible approves of that.

We need more Christian Sharia laws like that.

But seriously: Christians only have the right to say who can be married by their priests. They have no right to tell a Buddhist or follower of FSM who they can or can't marry.

Can we please stop acting like marriage being between a man and a woman is a Christian idea.

Or are you arguing that the Christian Taliban is secretly controlling Japan and China?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Can we please stop acting like marriage being between a man and a woman is a Christian idea.

Or are you arguing that the Christian Taliban is secretly controlling Japan and China?
China and Japan are not the US, so they're hardly relevant. You need to consider the laws on their own merits. You can point to China and Japan, just as supporters of gay marriage can point to Canada and the Netherlands. Where does that get us? The basis for a law should not be "But look at China and Japan!," it should be considering the merits of the law as they will apply to us.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
As mentioned in every thread like this, there are 2 marriages being discussed:

- Religious marriage: your faith has every right to control who you can marry in the eyes of your faith.

- Civil marriage: a state-recognized legal agreement between individuals, used to recognize rights and interests in property, children, health care.

In my opinion: Civil marriage should be renamed "civil union" through a constitutional amendment to clear up the confusion. It should be open to any set of consenting adults. Until that happens though, civil marriage should not be denied to gays or Canadians just because of their sexual or national orientation.

Unfortunately this renaming may never be practical because of the need to deal with the legal systems of other countries.

Christians have every right to control the religious rite of marriage for their members. They can refuse to marry gays or Canadians as much as their god tells them to.
 
Last edited:

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Get rid of marriage. It's the right thing to do. Create civil unions and be done with it. None of the religious people are mature enough to not be bigots on the matter so lets just remove marriage from everyone since they can't play nice. Then if they have a problem we punish them by taking away their tax exempt status. If that doesn't stop them we annex the land that their church is on and turn it into a planned parenthood. If they still insist on being bigots we throw them in jail and tell everyone they're child predators.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Because marriage is already defined as between a man and woman.

Your argument is akin to redefining the word heterosexual to include gays and then calling gays heterosexual.

Just make a new word with a different definition, give it the same civil rights, and be done with it. I really don't see the problem with this route.

My dictionary has one definition: Religious ceremony; period. Go read your own bible, marriage is defined from start to finish as a property exchange but with rights to screw your wife's hand maiden (LOL) almost the same as (women no longer have to submit to rape by their husbands) in today's divorce court where it is ground down to its essentials.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
China and Japan are not the US, so they're hardly relevant. You need to consider the laws on their own merits. You can point to China and Japan, just as supporters of gay marriage can point to Canada and the Netherlands. Where does that get us? The basis for a law should not be "But look at China and Japan!," it should be considering the merits of the law as they will apply to us.

You completely missed the point I am making.

China and Japan irrefutably demonstrate that marriage being between a man and a woman has nothing to do with the "Christian Taliban".
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Get rid of marriage. It's the right thing to do. Create civil unions and be done with it. None of the religious people are mature enough to not be bigots on the matter so lets just remove marriage from everyone since they can't play nice. Then if they have a problem we punish them by taking away their tax exempt status. If that doesn't stop them we annex the land that their church is on and turn it into a planned parenthood. If they still insist on being bigots we throw them in jail and tell everyone they're child predators.

Again, can we stop pretending that believing that marriage is between a man and a woman makes you a "religious bigot".

Or are you arguing that China and Japan are full of religious bigots?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
You completely missed the point I am making.

China and Japan irrefutably demonstrate that marriage being between a man and a woman has nothing to do with the "Christian Taliban".
No, they don't, because the cultures of China and Japan are very different than those in the US. The reason for marriage being recognized only between heterosexual couples in China and Japan could be completely different than the reason for only recognizing heterosexual marriage in the US, or any other location where gay marriage isn't recognized. The fact is, the most vocal oppostition to gay marriage in the United States comes from conservative Christian groups. I'm not going to defend the label "Christian Taliban" or whatever since that's just pointless conflation and only serves a rhetorical purpose of villifying people. But the fact is, China and Japan's reasons for restricting marriage are not based around conservative Christian ideals; in this country, they most certainly are.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No, they don't, because the cultures of China and Japan are very different than those in the US. The reason for marriage being recognized only between heterosexual couples in China and Japan could be completely different than the reason for only recognizing heterosexual marriage in the US, or any other location where gay marriage isn't recognized. The fact is, the most vocal oppostition to gay marriage in the United States comes from conservative Christian groups. I'm not going to defend the label "Christian Taliban" or whatever since that's just pointless conflation and only serves a rhetorical purpose of villifying people. But the fact is, China and Japan's reasons for restricting marriage are not based around conservative Christian ideals; in this country, they most certainly are.

The problem is that you act like culture and religion are separable. When they are clearly intertwined.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
The problem is that you act like culture and religion are separable. When they are clearly intertwined.
Obviously. But we also live in a country that is supposed to be secular and welcoming of all faiths; legislating from one specific religion is distinctly unAmerican. It's sad how many Americans just don't seem to get that point.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Obviously. But we also live in a country that is supposed to be secular and welcoming of all faiths; legislating from one specific religion is distinctly unAmerican. It's sad how many Americans just don't seem to get that point.

What is sad is that the liberal "arugment" for gay marriage essentially boils down to

(1) Straight people can get married

(2) Anyone who disagrees is a religious bigot.

This is probably because to argue anything else would require them to believe that marriage had any purpose or meant anything.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
The problem is that you act like culture and religion are separable. When they are clearly intertwined.

You do realize that not all Christian sects oppose letting gays and Canadians marry, don't you?

The founding fathers were largely Deists but wanted freedom from any specific religion to be one of the "inalienable rights" of American citizens.

So: imposing your religion on gays is un-American and does earn you labels like "Christian Taliban" and "Christian Sharia law".
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You do realize that not all Christian sects oppose letting gays and Canadians marry, don't you?

The founding fathers were largely Deists but wanted freedom from any specific religion to be one of the "inalienable rights" of American citizens.

So you instead want to impose your religious definition of marriage on society :rolleyes:


So: imposing your religion on gays is un-American and does earn you labels like "Christian Taliban" and "Christian Sharia law".

I have not once used religion to argue for marriage being between a a man and a woman.

And have repeatedly shown that non-Christian societies also believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
This is probably because to argue anything else would require them to believe that marriage had any purpose or meant anything.
Marriage does have a purpose. It's a legal contract between two people that determines a great number of things in our country, from next-of-kin and visitation rights to taxation to joint contracts, etc. The liberal argument for gay marriage is not "religious people are against it, therefore we want it," it's that there really is no convincing argument to restrict marriage solely to heterosexual couples that doesn't hinge on a religious belief. Children? There's no requirement that straight couples pro-create, infertile straight couples are not banned from marriage and gay couples can adopt or use in vitro fertilization to conceive. Tradition? That's not a good argument in favor of keeping a law in place; it's a fall back when you have no other argument in favor. Morality? Now we're getting in to religious arguments, again, not a good foundation for legislation in a secular country.

If there's no valid reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman, why should we prevent homosexual marriage from being legalized?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
So you instead want to impose your religious definition of marriage on society :rolleyes:

How is "anyone can have the state, civil version of marriage" imposing a religion?

Freedom from religion is not religion. Muslims and Jews are not Atheists just because they are not Christians.

And have repeatedly shown that non-Christian societies also believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not in America, which grants liberty as an inalienable right. Communist China defining property rights or marriage rights has no connection to the rights of Americans.

Unless there is a compelling reason, the American way is to choose freedom and equality over discrimination.

From past history, you'll probably try bringing up child-rearing but:
- We allow old and infertile people to marry
- Same-sex couples can raise children too, even if your religion tells you it's icky and will give the kids cooties.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
The reason you want to call gay marriage marriage is because marriage is a sacred right people perform before God to announce their undying commitment to each other. Gay love in this regard, among believing gays is exactly the same as it is between believing straight people. Gays have as much right to have this sacred bond recognized when it is felt as anybody else. Some Christians are assholes about this because they believe that only they are worthy before God. They didn't get the message that God loves us all equally. They know better than God. This is what religious hate and intolerance will do for you, make you think you should be God instead of God. If there's something beyond this life on earth maybe there will be some very surprised hypocrites.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
How is "anyone can have the state, civil version of marriage" imposing a religion?

Freedom from religion is not religion. Muslims and Jews are not Atheists just because they are not Christians.

You want to impose a religious definition of marriage. It is just the definition of a religious group.


Not in America, which grants liberty as an inalienable right. Communist China defining property rights or marriage rights has no connection to the rights of Americans.

It shows that the definition of marriage I am using exists outside of religion.

And marriage is an institution granting by society. You do not have an inalienable right to have society recognize your relationship.


Unless there is a compelling reason, the American way is to choose freedom and equality over discrimination.

From past history, you'll probably try bringing up child-rearing but:
- We allow old and infertile people to marry
- Same-sex couples can raise children too, even if your religion tells you it's icky and will give the kids cooties.

Same-sex couples cannot pro-create.

Please point out to be a fool proof test for determining fertility.

Old men can pro-create anyway.

So really your argument is that no one thought to ban post-menopausal women from marrying. Which seems like a pretty poor argument.

Especially since no one actually banned people from marrying someone of the same sex. The concept of marriage was simply not extended to such relationships. Because society has no compelling interest in homosexual relationships.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You of all people should know this. Apparently its a moral consideration.

Parent/child is a legally recognized relationship, you are legally compelled to care for your child. Husband/wife - you are legally compelled to honor your commitment to maintain your wife's lifestyle in relation to your income (I'm sure you like that one), the wife's consideration in this contract is her useful birthing years. At least that's what the intention was but now you can be married after menopause and still get alimony.

You also want to means test women and couples to make sure they don't take on a legal relationship with a potential child before they can afford one.
That's all fucking bullshit. Get Government OUT OF MARRIAGE! You or I have NO PLACE in saying what the agreement between two people is. Maybe we should do more to push people into not being such idiots and getting into such nonsense without thinking it out, besides trying to make rules and guidelines for everything.

This whole issue is an issue because Government intervenes far to much into our lives when it comes to what we can say or do. BTW 1st Amendment protects all unions of peoples from the Federal Congress, right to assembly protects all same sex marriage and it's bullshit that tax code can be used as a loophole to not. IMO that makes the tax code null, not their ability to get married. Only a moron could possibly see it otherwise.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
That's all fucking bullshit. Get Government OUT OF MARRIAGE! You or I have NO PLACE in saying what the agreement between two people is. Maybe we should do more to push people into not being such idiots and getting into such nonsense without thinking it out, besides trying to make rules and guidelines for everything.

This whole issue is an issue because Government intervenes far to much into our lives when it comes to what we can say or do. BTW 1st Amendment protects all unions of peoples from the Federal Congress, right to assembly protects all same sex marriage and it's bullshit that tax code can be used as a loophole to not. IMO that makes the tax code null, not their ability to get married. Only a moron could possibly see it otherwise.

Only a moron would think that the right to assembly means you have the right to demand the government recognize your assembly. No one is preventing gay people from assembling.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,067
1,550
126
Lets call the "government" recognized union Garriage (which comes with government liabilities and benefits)
and the religiousy one marriage... (which carries no civil/legal weight)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Bigots are always after anything but fair and equal treatment of those they have bigoted ideas about, whether it's galling marriage by some other word or getting the government out of it. Bigots need to go fuck themselves before they get to fuck others. The government is not getting out of marriage and gay marriage isn't going to be called something else. That is just bigot smoke coming out of bigot's asses.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Fine to pay for all this gay marriage if you are gay and married you get to pay a higher tax. Plus we can identify who is gay.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
The purpose of government recognition of certain relationships is that they're demonstrably beneficial to society.

Heterosexual one-man-one-woman relationships are not the only ones that are beneficial to society.