The Definition of Marriage

[Jayd]

In order for traditional marriage proponents to get their asinine arguments into the court system, they have to argue for the right to maintain "the definition of marriage". This definition having historical and religious backing that traditional families have some "right" to.

This argument puts them in jeopardy, they have to settle for a very superficial definition of what marriage is. Simply a union between a man and a woman. In thinking about this, I wrote the following on my FB wall.

Marriage is more than just a man and a woman living together. It is about love, commitment, community, and building family. The definition of marriage. What a shallow definition to argue for. While traditional families have their men and women living together, in their marriages, I'm going to be sure to have something much more fulfilling and authentic someday than just living with someone in union.

http://www.facebook.com/goodasgay

[zeon]

Thats nice way to put it.. I persoannly wont be getting married as sadly the man i wanted went and met another guy and left me but hey ho all good fun.. I think marriage is something that p[eople shouldnt take with a pinch of salt for starters look at the price for a signature!"

[chillythoughts]

interesting post but I think marriage is way beyond then just a man and a woman. I believe a man and a man or a woman and a woman can get married. its loyalty, cherishing eachother, love, and just being there for each other is what defines a marriage. not that bullshit of a man and a woman... please.

[dfiant]

Marriage predates religion. Marriage is now an 'institute' embraced by religion and defined by religion. When we talk about marriage in this day and age, we talk about what has become 'traditional' marriage and governed by laws imposed on it by religion.

I want nothing to do with marriage, I have no desire to be married or associate with something that divides and marginalises a community.

I also am a firm believer of equal rights (As opposed to 'special' rights which dick heads seem to think we are asking for), and believe firmly that the option of marriage should be made available to all human beings and laws should not discriminate religion, gender, sexuality or race when it comes to the union of 2 people who love each other.

Laws should only be in place for immoral behaviour and marraige should only be between 2 humans that are capable of consenting to sharing their lives together.

[pellaz]

for sure it is not going to significantly change you.
definition; something new something old

of all peeps here i would have a good incite in what could go bad, i defiantly would get married again.

-human nature being what it is, marriage establishes a few hoops to jump before you can bail and chances are makes you want to work things out faster better.
-Makes you behave too, i can attest to that.
-More security; so you wake up one day an look at your partners cell phone and see he has been seeing someone else. Just living together gets rough at that point.
-you gain lots of legal stuff all at once. Granted you could generate this none organic but its a hassle and a guess if it holds up to its intended functionality.
-security, better behavior, you might do better in life but everything post marriage is common property.

its really important for the gay agenda tho. we do exist.

[princealbertofb]

Marriage predates religion. Marriage is now an 'institute' embraced by religion and defined by religion. When we talk about marriage in this day and age, we talk about what has become 'traditional' marriage and governed by laws imposed on it by religion.

I want nothing to do with marriage, I have no desire to be married or associate with something that divides and marginalises a community.

I also am a firm believer of equal rights (As opposed to 'special' rights which dick heads seem to think we are asking for), and believe firmly that the option of marriage should be made available to all human beings and laws should not discriminate religion, gender, sexuality or race when it comes to the union of 2 people who love each other.

Laws should only be in place for immoral behaviour and marriage should only be between 2 humans that are capable of consenting to sharing their lives together.

Conversely, this is the WHOLE point of "marriage equality", of things being EQUAL. A right that every adult human being has to be entitled to (and have the duties of) a union which benefits the pair in many many legal ways.

Is there still an UNDERAGE limit???

[princealbertofb]

This new definition is long overdue.... But we still have to convince what proportion of the world that this is a GOOD idea??? It's a bit overwhelming. We shall battle on, nonetheless...

[nikgee]

Conversely, this is the WHOLE point of "marriage equality", of things being EQUAL. A right that every adult human being has to be entitled to (and have the duties of) a union which benefits the pair in many many legal ways.

Is there still an UNDERAGE limit???

From what I can see the whole argument is over the definition of marriage. In the past or present day law it is loosely defined. I don't think gender is even stated. Marriage was a spiritual between two people who love and want to spend their lives together. Now, the "religious ones" want to change and clarify stating marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I don't that ruling has a majority vote if that vote was taken to the people.

In my opinion there will never be an agreement on the moral issue., But in the name of liberty and freedom and tolerance they must grant equal rights to this marriage issue here. Deal nwith it and move on.I mean there are other thing that needs attending to. Like all those people that don't have jobs or enough money to take care of their families . Or how about this one stopping all the killing of our young people in the military. Or balancing a budget. I better stop now.