If marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is it incorrect to use the term "gay marriage"?
469256
Techinically yeah, but that's what people are trying to change...that marriage isn't defined as between a man and a woman rather two individuals.
784269
I won't get into the sin thing, since I'm a Humanist and that's a religious concept, but it does seem to me that, if one of the reasons societies promote marriage is to promote stability, then it doesn't make sense to discourage same-sex couples from marrying.  Denying gay couples the right to marry is not defending marriage.
996635
same sex relationships dont bother me in the slightest. yes i believe they should be allowed, and yes, it should be called Marriage. I'm straight too, so i dont think this affects me on any level, but i try to look at it from a different standpoint...what if i were straight, in a world that was homosexual? what if i was the minority, wanting the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?
931321
yes! ~ I agree! ~ Marriage is sacred and shouldn't be changed to conform to those who want to make it less than what it is.  If they want a civil union with the same benefits as marriage, fine.  But marriage shouldn't be changed.  And this has nothing to do with the bible ~ this is about the tradition and the meaning of marriage.
852446
The whole gay maariage thing is so bothersome to most because the gay people want to get married in churches \nnot even taking into account the act in itself is one of the sins of the bible and marriage well the word itself has been throughout\nhistory as the joining of a man and a women.  I do believe most Religious doctrines are upset that the use of marriage is being thrown around like the word is not a sacred bond between man and women that the word marriage should only be used to describe that bond of two opposite sex period.  Gay people must realize that word is sacred and is defined in the bible and many other books that have been written outside of the church sector.\nUse coupling, use partnering.  Marriage/married is a sacred word so if people are making this choice in life to be commiting a sin in the eyes of GOD then they should find their own word to remark on there relationship.
914588
If you're talking about heterosexual couples who have been together long enough to be considered married, it's entirely possible.  \nMy mother did inform me, however, that "for the safety of their children", the referendum in this last election to modify the state constitution to include gay unions was declined.
228416
no.  Why should I sacrifice my beliefs?  What makes homosexual marriage more valid than the way it has been for centuries.  Marriage has always meant a man and woman.  If they want a commitment ceremony fine.  I am all for having a list for whoever the sick person in the hospital wants to see including friends.  Most companies already provide insurance coverage for a partner.\n\nBut there is no need to change the definition of marriage.
184172
You can marry the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, while they can't. Laws against same-sex marriage impose an arbitrary, and essentially religious view of marriage on people who do not believe in it, for no reason other than to maintain the status quo. It is ridiculous to say that you have the same rights because you can't marry someone of the same sex either; you obviously don't want to.
745705
Absolutely.  IMMEDIATELY.  People say that it will "ruin the sanctity of marriage" and "make a mockery of it", but...\n\nCivil marriage laws don't exist to uphold the ideals which opponents want the institution to reflect, so the fact that, in their eyes, same sex marriage "violates" the institution is of no consequence when considering the legalization of same sex marriage.\n\nRemember: there is no clause that requires people to be capable of procreation in order to marry. There is no written or unspoken requirement compelling each couple to enter into the contract with only those intentions that are considered "pure" or "proper". There is no small print at the bottom of the actual contract which states that every person involved in the union must behave, believe or live in any certain way (besides, of course, remaining faithful to their spouse, and even that bit is often disregarded in "open" marriage and no external force tries to obligate those marriages to dissolve).\n\nThe majority may feel that the institution SHOULD represent one certain concept (i.e. that it exists strictly for making families) or set of values (i.e. according to the Christian Bible) but marriage law and contracts have never translated that desire into any sort of obligation.\n\nA man and a woman can and will get legally married for a myriad of reasons, good or bad, because they HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. A man and a man or a woman and a woman deserve THE SAME OPPORTUNITY to make it work or do it for the same "good or bad" reasons.
147167
no it should not be legalized. Marriage is between a man and a woman. What you want to be with someone of the same sex that is fine. But to get the same benefits that married men and women get is in my opinion not right. This is sending the wrong message to our children. It's in the bible" a man should not lay with another man ". That;'s gotta say something!
35814
Do I think so?  Yes of course gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to get married if they choose.  However, the problem that you have in the United States, at present time, is that the "Powers that be"  are looking at marriage as an institute ordained by God, and then basing their judgements on gay marriage on the views of homosexuality in the Bible.  \n\nThis way of thinking is a problem for a couple reasons:  1)  The Bible speaks in reference to men and women joining together and looks down upon homosexual relations, well at the same time the Bible also says that men and women when joining together should be equally yoked.  Which to me means that if you are going to apply one section of the Bible to laws on marriage, you would also have to apply the Bible's teachings to all marriages in question.  So, people of different religous background and orientations could no longer marry, nor people of different ethnic backgrounds.  After all, why should we just apply one section of the Bible to marriage laws right?  2) We are supposed, as far as I understand it, have a seperation of Church and State in this country, to assure that religious persecution does not cross over into the laws of the land, which in this case is what I believe we have here.\n\nMy 2 cents.....
938882
The definition of 'marriage' varies from culture to culture, century to century, nation to nation. In other words, there is no SINGLE valid defition. It varies. Here's a radical thought: Decide what marriage means TO YOU and to the person YOU LOVE and then act accordingly.\n\nBy the way, the same is true for 'sin'. It's all relative to who is talking. Opinions differ and no one can say who's right or wrong.
418160
I would like to first address the use of the term marriage in relationship to same-sex unions. Marriage is a religious definition in use for four or more thousand years to signify the union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreating and maintaining a long term relationship to raise the children of this union. It is also necessary to have this union to exist within a community. Marriage has at its' heart the goal of extending ones' heritage and history. \n\nThe Old Testament of the Bible which is the basis for Jewish Religion, combined with the New Testament which is the basis for Christianity and is a revered book of Islam support this  definition. With this in mind, same-sex unions do not fit the definition for marriage.\n\nNow laws that forbid same-sex unions have been in effect for this same period of time. The reasoning for this is that they do not serve  needs of the community and are viewed as deviant behavior in nearly all cultures that exist today.\n\nOnly in cultures that place the needs of the individual higher than the needs of the community, is there a tendency for homosexuality and same-sex unions to be allowed.\n\nLaws forbidding these unions exist in matriarchial societies as well as patriachial societies. Other reasons given for laws governing marriage and sexual behavior are to maintain the health of individuals within the community. Another reason given is that this behavior does not follow within the norm for the behavior for a culture.
1014923
The sacred union of marriage is between a man and a woman.  That is how it is supposed to be.  It is completely unnatural for two people of the same sex to get married.  I will never view a homosexual "marriage" as a real marriage.  It is a total insult to me and all of the other people out there  who are in a true and natural marriage!  How dare two people who have chosen to ignore God's Word and engage in a totally unnatural relationship compare their relationship to the relationship that I have with my husband by getting "married" ?  PLEASE!!!
477549
a lot of people have said that marriage is a partnership. Usually that means there is some kind of consenus on the bigger issues but that doesnt mean they have to agree on everything. Difference is something that should be celebrated and cherised in a relationship. However there are some dealbreakers that it can be important that both sides of the relationship are on the same page, such as gender roles in marriage and whether or not to have kids and how they should be raised. As long as on some of the bigger "dealbreaker" issues the marriage is on solid ground, disagreements about other things are not a bad thing.
607353
>>>How does two gay people forming a union affect you?<<<\n\nIt doesn't, but its effect on me personally is not the only reason for keeping marriage "as is."\n\nAfter all, whether or not drugs are legalized doesn't affect me either.  Whether they're legal or not, I'm not going to take them.  \n\nBut according to your logic, I should not oppose the legalization of drugs because it doesn't affect me personally -- whether it affects me seems to be your litmus test on whether I should oppose it or not. \n\nA very solid majority of Americans are against legalized gay marriage -- and we should not have to justify that opinion by appealing to whether or not it affects us personally.   \n\n>>>Why are you opposed to it? Is it because you feel it's your job to determine their morality?<<<\n\nNo, it's because marriage is under enough assault as it is -- through high divorce rates and the like.  Legalize gay marriage, and the divorce rate would skyrocket, given the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle.  \n\n>>>If that's not the reason, then what is?<<<\n\nBecause, again, the fundamental man-woman union of marriage is under enough assault as it is, and we need not intensify that assault by changing its defition to suit a small percentage of people who engage in a historically promiscuous lifestyle.  \n\n>>>I can see no logical reason why you should oppose two people committing themselves to monogamy, even if it's homosexual...<<<\n\nAnd I can see no logical reason why homosexuals have to push for legalized gay marriage in order to encourage monogamy within their ranks.  Surely they can commit to monogamous relationships without seeking to hijack the concept of marriage to justify their sexual behavior.  \n\nHomosexuals are just as physically capable of monogamy -- without legalized gay marriage -- as are heterosexual people.  But the fact that gays are notoriously promiscuous compared to heterosexuals means that though they are capable of monogamy, they're not necessarily willing.  \n\nWhy should we fundamentally change the definition of marriage in order to encourage monogamy among homosexuals, when they've as a group displayed little willingness to live such monogamy in the first place?
1160041
With the separation of church and state, can the government even legislate what marriage is??  "Marriage" is a religious ceremony to unite 2 people.\n\nIf the government wants to have marriage be a lawful union, then they have to come up with an unbias reason (not based in religious belief) that gays should not marry.  Because it is stated to be wrong in the bible will not fly in a court of law.  Anytime that someone tries to pass a law about marriage being between a man and a woman, it gets struck down as unconstitutional because lawmakers can't come up with a good enough reason other than it's in the bible.  Thank God that someone can still look at the law without pulling the bible into the mix.\n\nI seriously think that no one ever expects the law to pass, and it is only done to make "friends" with the "moral majority".  If the Christian Right is happy, the funds keep going into the reelection accounts.  They can say "well, we tried".