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

[Pray To Jesus]

Give them the same civil rights and all that.

hey it would work on this issue since it's on paper only

not like we're making them do anything differently

would solve this whole debate really

but homosexuals want to call it marriage for what?

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.

You keep calling it Jim Crow for gays, thus relying on the negative connotations of racial discrimination to further support your cause. However, you have failed to provide good arguments of why it wouldn't work in this specific case if laws were made such that any civil benefits/restrictions given marriage be also given to garriage.

A sticky issue I can think of is places where the homosexuals go to get garried. As a one off event, I believe it is sufficient to allow the free market to solve this issue. The government should not be involved.

This solution seems a lot more fair to everyone.

If you can prove that the definition of marriage historically did not include marriage as being between a man and a women, then I will agree with using the word marriage for garriage.

If you cannot prove such a thing, then I see no reason to change the current definition of marriage. Instead, another word, such as garriage, should be used for that separate concept.

 

[her209]

You mean you want to keep it separate but equal?

:awe:

 

[MaxPayne63]

How about we abandon the medieval tradition of allowing the government to say who can and cannot be married and be done with it?

Oh right, then crooked politicians wouldn't be able to manufacture reasons to vote for them.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

You mean you want to keep it separate but equal?

:awe:

hey it would work on this issue since it's on paper only

not like we're making them do anything differently

would solve this whole debate really

but homosexuals want to call it marriage for what?

 

[Sinsear]

Why don't we just call it "wrong" and be done with it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why don't we just have you bigoted pigs go fuck yourselves and let gay people get married. It's not that you worthless trash have any lock on virtue or represent anything sacred at all. There's nothing good about filthy bigots.

 

[gevorg]

What about 3+ relationships? Two chicks at the same time need rights too! Polirriage?

 

[FaaR]

but homosexuals want to call it marriage for what?

When gay people park their cars, do they "gay park" them?
...No?

So why should we call gay people marrying something else than simply marriage?

Uptight, bigoted christians (like you, perhaps) need to consult your bible, specifically passages matt 7:1, and john 8:7 amongst many others probably. Try to actually live according to your claimed deity's teachings for once in your effing life, that'd be great. Thank you.

 

[nehalem256]

How about we abandon the medieval tradition of allowing the government to say who can and cannot be married and be done with it?

Oh right, then crooked politicians wouldn't be able to manufacture reasons to vote for them.

How about you stop demanding that the government recognize your relationship?

Oh wait you do want them to say who can and cannot get married. You just want them to add people marrying someone of the same sex to the can list.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why dont we just lock you up in the a nut house and be dont with it?

It is seriously saddening that their are people alive in this world like you.

 

[nehalem256]

Why dont we just lock you up in the a nut house and be dont with it?

It is seriously saddening that their are people alive in this world like you.

so giving gay people the same civil rights is saddening according to you

 

[SheHateMe]

AT has taught me that Christians are some of the worse people ever. I've seen this in real life too...however, the attitudes of modern day Christians have been magnified for me via this forum.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I find it funny how in this thread all the insults and personal attacks are done by atheists, done while complaining how Christians are the bad ones.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

When gay people park their cars, do they "gay park" them?
...No?

So why should we call gay people marrying something else than simply marriage?

Uptight, bigoted christians (like you, perhaps) need to consult your bible, specifically passages matt 7:1, and john 8:7 amongst many others probably. Try to actually live according to your claimed deity's teachings for once in your effing life, that'd be great. Thank you.

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.

 

[SheHateMe]

I find it funny how in this thread all the insults and personal attacks are done by atheists, done while complaining how Christians are the bad ones.

I find it funny how Christians label anyone who doesnt agree with them as "Atheists". Truly a testament to your ignorance and to how quickly you folks like to judge people.

Jesus died a LONG time ago, dude.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

 

[momeNt]

You can have a contract for pretty much everything marriage provides except the tax benefits. Should just remove that anyways and lower the rate to cancel it out but give singles a drop in taxes.

 

[bfdd]

How about we just get government out of marriage completely? Then people can form couplings anyways they like, let the make their own contracts with each other. Unless you know, you're a tool and elieve you or others should have control over how people live tgheir lives together.

Ps neither major party holds this view. Supporting dems and reps means you believe you should have some say or control over others in this regard and it also shows you're an idiot in understanding the right to assemble. Fed Gov't needs to grt the fuck pout and they've used the bullshit tax code we have today to reach for so much control.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sorry folks, you are still going to need some kind of legal recognition of certain kinds of relationshsips.


But you can call it/them whatever you want

 

[nehalem256]

Sorry folks, you are still going to need some kind of legal recognition of certain kinds of relationshsips.

But you can call it/them whatever you want

Why do you need legal recognition of certain types of relationships?

And how do you determine which kinds of relationships need legal recognition?

 

[momeNt]

Why do you need legal recognition of certain types of relationships?

And how do you determine which kinds of relationships need legal recognition?

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.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I find it funny how Christians label anyone who doesnt agree with them as "Atheists". Truly a testament to your ignorance and to how quickly you folks like to judge people.

Jesus died a LONG time ago, dude.

1) Most likely you are an atheist, high probability there
2) Being an atheist is not an insult in and of itself
3) You could also be gay and have preconceived notions of how everyone views you
4) Still no insult found in my posts yet, what judgement have I given so far regarding gays or atheists?
5) Another personal attack, colored me surprised. You get judged on this because it shows your character.
6) Failed to respond to original quote because it's true
7) Instead, attack post with personal attack while ignoring main idea
8) Jesus died a long time ago, was resurrected, and now is living with God the Father, so technically he's alive. In fact, he's more alive than you or I since he has eternal life in a perfect body.

 

[jackstar7]

Give them the same civil rights and all that.

Why is that required? It's still just a marriage.

I think the language can adapt to a broader definition... since it basically has already.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Obviously we need different terms for "husband," "wife" and "spouse" as well. Imagine how confused you would get if a woman introduced you to her "wife;" it would just be ridiculous! How about "legal partner in queerness?"

 

[DaveSimmons]

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.