Don't you agree that gay and lesbian union should be called something else other than marriage?
Yes, i agree with that. If they want to be with each other that´s ok, but marriage is not that. Maybe should exist another name for that.
No, I don't. I don't think one group can lay claim to a word and insist that nobody else use it. Marriage already means different things to different people, and every marriage is different, since the individuals in it are different.
I can't say that my hair is blonde, and then insist that nobody else use the word "blonde" unless their hair is exactly the same shade as mine. Same thing. It doesn't diminish my blondeness for someone else to also call their hair blonde. That would be silly.
PS> This is called a leading question (beginning with "don't you think..." or "isn't it true..."). It's not conducive to real open discussion; it sounds like you just want people to tell you you're right. Maybe that's the case, but if that's so, I'm not sure posing it as a question is even useful.
I agree. It should be called something else. @Maddie Ruud, you are a woman and you're identified as such. In the Oxford dictionary, you will find the definition of a woman as an adult human female. What would happen today if some group begin a movement to insist that an animal specie should be included in that definition. Don't you think it would distort the meaning of the word woman and cause confusion?
I just believe that gay and lesbian union should be called something other than marriage since the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman.
@Dixon North, thanks a lot for your insightful suggestions.They should use a combination of gay, lez and trans to come up with a word for their union
A marriage is a commitment between two people to share their lives. Why should it be called anything less because it doesn't fit the religious and social norm people like to cling to?
No - the people that enter into it can call it what they want! As can anyone else. Thankfully, words (unless they are trademarks) are not owned by anyone and can be used in whatever context one chooses. Language is not static - it will always evolve and change to meet the needs of the current society. I'm personally very glad that we are not still speaking like Chaucer!
In the UK the legal term for a same sex marriage is a civil partnerhsip though people may choose to call it marriage. It gives exactly the same rights and responsibilities to same sex couples as heterosexual couples.
No. In the Bible the word "Marriage" refers to any partnership dealings, whether personal or business.
Of course it should be called something else....because it is something else. Marriage has always been defined as the union between man and wife.
No, I don't. If a "normal" marriage is defined as male/female, then within that there are open marriages, marriages of convenience, those who swing and have a variety of sexual partners, and even some who marry for tax benefits or stay married only 'for the children' or ... yet live as roomies. How is all of that 'normal' while same sex unions is not? None of the above examples describe the traditional image of a union between husband and wife, yet since they are male and female, they can be considered normal?
It's just about semantics and efforts to controls others while clinging to social norms. As long as the same rights are given to ALL couples, individuals are then free to name it whatever they want.
I believe it should be called something else because it is something else.I think they should reallt listen to the vows and understand them. Of course the vows can be changed to suit them but if that it is done then they are not following the original vows which are in a spiritual sense .To me that is not considered a valid marriage.
The wording of this question is either biased or intended to be provocative. Anyway, the answer is clearly no. There is not a single ethical or moral concept of marriage that one particular group of people can claim for itself and the legal concept of marriage is about rights and obligations. Therefore, on moral grounds, everybody should pursue their concept of marriage; and on legal grounds there should be no discrimination of individuals based on their sexual orientation as is laid down by the rule of law. Unless we want to change that marriage should be open to everybody.
Definitions, in a dynamic language like English, are not always rigid and unchanging. Dictionaries do not determine the meanings of words, but broad common usage does. Some meanings can evolve drastically over as little as one generation while others go unchanged for ages.
Consider that the “N” word was once a mild and widely used noun whose meaning was calmly understood and broadly accepted by all races at all levels of society. Political correctness has me abbreviating the same word today because it carries such a highly charged dehumanizing connotation of racism considered unacceptable by most of society. Ironically, it has found acceptance and common use only as slang among shrinking segments of the race it formerly identified.
As for marriage, it matters little what words we use in reference to the different kinds. It only matters that those who employ the words have an accurate notion about what meanings are conveyed to those who encounter them. Changing the words doesn’t have to alter the significance nor the sanctity that each of our belief systems identifies with each kind of arrangement.
Society deem marriage as a union between Man & Woman announcing their commitment to one another to God and their loved ones.
I call it love no matter who's doing it
Dear BM, you're a BM! Thats no way to talk whats wrong with you besides you're not right in the head. Brenda you rule! Bm is a bad actor in an ugly play. BM needs a long chew on the bar of soap not to mention serious counseling. Theres no way to convince them that they're behavior is hidious! BM get some help and take the rest of the fruit salad with you! Peace.
Attachment towards definitions and words will do nothing but create suffering and unhappiness due to their finite and variable nature. I think it shows with the anguish each side on this issue show. With that said, I still think there’s some logic behind it.
Church’s should have no responsibility to recognize something against their cannon or that they simply don’t want to acknowledge. The American government has a responsibility to treat each member of the nation equally.
I don’t feel you can call marriage a Christian word, but have little to no concern if you do. My focus is on everyone receiving the same treatment, and see gays no different than any other American. Let them unite in a manner than permits them to file taxes together, share insurance, make personal decisions for the other when one is unable to, or anything else a married couple in America can do.
In a message to Christians who have such a religious concern with this, I have a few points/questions.
Look at the bible in its entirety. Is gay marriage a larger issue than divorce? Matthew 19:6 (The New American Bible) Jesus shows than man cannot separate what God has put together. This is a Christian marriage, not one made by the government. He even stresses that in marriage two people become one! In America 41% of first marriages end in divorce, 60% of second marriages end in divorce, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce (divorcerate.org). This may not be fully updated or accurate, but it is clear that divorce is much more common than desired gay unions in this country, but the Christian movement intensely focuses on gay unions.
Lastly is how Jesus viewed judging others. In Luke 7:37-41 he makes statements such as,”Why do you notice the splinter in your brothers eyes, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own,” and ”can a blind person guide a blind person?” Can someone who continuously judges another for being gay lead them down the path of Christianity? Give them the rights that you would give to anyone else. If you don’t, are you not judging them? Are they killers, do they create a societal threat? I guess that is the biggest gray area. A homosexual seems much different to me than a murderer or a thief, but I feel the Christian movement (the largest movement in this issue), needs to examine their motives, because often they view them in the same light. We are all sinners.
Personally, I do not like the term 'gay marriage'. It seems almost silly to add the word gay to it. All to often, society gets stuck by wanting to define everything we do and everything we are. If you pay taxes, you should have full legal rights. It's very simple.
In response to your question, no I do not believe they should be called anything different than marriage. Marriage in my opinion is between two people that love each other. If two people love each other, then they should be able to express their love for each other however they deem worthy. I am not married and I at this time choose not to be, but if that day came where I truly loved someone, then I would ask them to marry me.
Contrary to what is being put out by the radical religious right, hereafter referred to as the rrr, marriage has NOT been around "unchanged" since the beginning of time. In fact, marriage can only be traced back about 4500 years and even then it was started NOT as a way for two people in love to share their lives but as a means to insure that a man's personal wealth didn't pass out of his legitimate family. The idea of marrying for love has only come about in the last 200 years or so.
As to the sanctity of marriage being "ordained by God", the Christian church didn't even get involved in the issue of who married who until well into the 1200s. And then, their main concern was, believe it or not, that a woman marry of her own free will.
Here in the US, marriage was at one time restricted only to landed whites. Blacks were not allowed to have legally recognized marriages. After this changed, a black man could marry a black women, but no black could marry a white in 16 states as late as 1968! I remember my mother telling me that the US Supreme Court had ruled that blacks could now marry whites (Loving v Virginia) and I was just so angered that the government was trying to tell you who you could fall in love with!
And that, in the end, is the main issue. Straights can marry the one they love; gays can't. Straights can get legal protections, privileges and financial benefits through that marriage to the one they love; gays can't. At least they can't in all states but Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa.
In this country, there are two types of marriages: civil and religious. You can have one without the other. But unless you fill out the CIVIL form for a marriage license, the marriage you entered into, whether civil or religious, conveys to you none of the legal protections, privileges or benefits.
So if the laws are rewritten so that ALL civil marriages are called civil unions and religious marriages are called marriages, and ONLY civil marriages bestow legal protections, THEN I'd have no problem with it. But that's not the way it is and I can't envision that ever happening, so I don't agree that gay and lesbian unions should be called something else other than marriage.
I think they should be allowed the right to visit one another in the hospital--they should somehow be allowed to be considered family--even non-gay roommates who simply have no other family should be allowed this.
Affiliation, incorporation, a written contract--they need something that guarantees them basic human rights without straining the definition of what non-gays call marriage.
Well, I believe in supporting opposite-sex marriage rights, particularly Catholic clergy rights of same. Who knows that they even exist?
why? what is wrong with the word marriage being used. correct me if im wrong but isnt it the joining of two people for eternity that love each other
No. Why should it be called something else, or, rather, something different? It's just words. If two things are the same thing, you don't need two separate words for it; that's just silly.
I think people are irked by this mostly because "marriage" has religious connotations and they view the marrying of homosexuals as sacrilegious. Well, if that's the case, why is the government marrying people? The government shouldn't involve itself in religious ritual, let alone be the establishment that performs one. So either legal marriage is a religious institution, and the government shouldn't marry people; or else it isn't, and everyone needs to stop trying to segregate it because it is not bound by traditional religious rules.
If you're going to "call it something else," then it shouldn't be called marriage either for homosexual or heterosexual couples. Everyone should have the same type of union, whether it's called marriage or not. So if we're going to quibble about this that much, let's just call it something else for everybody--I vote for "shacking up."
yes, I'm all for the same rights via civil union but marriage is a religious institution. Governments started using them to keep tabs on people and there's been an unfortunate intertwining of church and state because of that. Join together legally by a judge and then have a personal discussion with your respective religious leaders. Look, I'm definitely not the most religious person in the world but why would you want to be part of a religious institution when most of the religions that utilise it condemn homosexuality? It's a flaw in the LGBT argument, which I support fully in all other aspects.
I have a hub about it, if anyone's interested in my opinion in greater detail. http://hubpages.com/t/1e0a27
No. On what grounds should a gay or lesbian union not be called a marriage?
There is a difference between the union of heterosexuals and the union of homosexuals - this is nothing to be ashamed of or angry about - nor is it something that due the similarities we should view as the same thing
Why should the traditional use of the word "marriage" be changed for a minority group who want to be recognised as a couple
The vast majority of people get married to have children by the husband impregnating the wife
Since a gay couple cannot marry for this purpose then why should we use the same word?
Marriage is for opposite sexes
Same sex unions should have a different name
Unions that do not get married ie couples who live together and choose not to marry are called co-habiting and this can be heterosexual or homosexual
Absolutely! It should be called a different name especially for clarity.
Why does it need clarifing? What business is it of anyone else's whether the couple are two men, two women, or one of each?
The term Marriage has already changed, now it means:
"the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:"
So obviously the last part was added more recently, but it still signifies a union, and there are phrases like, "he is married to his job" etc.
Yet if you are referring to the Christian term of marriage where it's strictly the union of a man and a woman, because male homosexuality is forbidden in both the old and the new testament and they won't even be allowed to enter heaven (as scripture reads), then I understand where you are coming from, but we live in very different times (not "end times", just different times). There may have been a time where a white judge would not marry a black couple, and I think because many white people didn't even consider black people as fully human, Those were defiantly very sad times in history, but we shed that ignorance with much difficulty as it's very difficult to change a core belief system.
The masses strive to shed their primitive behaviors and ignorance, to gain knowledge and understanding, to evolve into better beings, this is only part of that. I believe that there are many religions which only hold people back from advancing, religions based upon the writings of ancient, primitive, and superstitious men.
Given that, I believe that the word "marriage" is appropriate in this day and age for both straight and gay people as it does represent a union.
No, The reason is that a marriage is a legal piece of paper. It doesn't mean God or the Devil is in the details. Marriage is supposed to ensure fidelity and respect and also love. So what difference does it make if a marriage (piece of legal paper) represents heterosexuals, homosexuals or lesbians? It is just a legal thing.
by Lince 3 years ago
Don't you think Pakistan should be called a "terror sponsor of terrorism" by the United States?There are various proofs of Pakistan officials giving aid and also giving shelter to many terrorists.So don't you think it should be called be a terrorist state?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by silverstararrow 5 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how being gay affects religion, how homosexuality undermines the institution of...
by JP Carlos 8 years ago
How would same-sex marriage affect our society?President Obama just confirmed that he is pro same-sex marriages.
by Jason Menayan 10 years ago
Thousands of gays and lesbians and their supporters are marching in Washington against the two institutions where they are still not equal to heterosexuals: the military and marriage.Obama has pledged to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, although he doesn't personally...
by Kylyssa Shay 4 years ago
Do you think the wide acceptance of marriage equality could lower the divorce rate?Before you answer, let me give you some background as to why I'd ask this question.For eleven years, I was married to a gay man. I thought my situation rare until I got a divorce and found out that many women have...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|