Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Let them marry
Definition
Marriage by its very definition cannot be performed on same sex partners.
Webster: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
Calling it marriage is changing the very definition of the word. That is like calling someone a homosexual and deciding that the definition means they like the opposite sex.
Now, if you want to call it something different. That is fine. I have no issues with two males or two females being joined to receive the tax and family benefits of married couples. As long as they also have to go through the long, drawn out process of divorce when they decide they don't want to be together anymore.
- Gideon From The Dirty Onion
September 18, 2008 8:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Run to Stagnation
If we were to follow your viewpoints on the world, racial minorities would still not be afforded the civil rights that they have today (because the Constitution, as ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford, was written for "white people" as opposed to all people).
Changing a definition in order to insure protection of civil rights is more just than holding onto a definition that wrongfully denies civil rights.
- QuinceyQuick
January 25, 2009 2:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And?
Do you think that the word itself is what holds the sanctity? This is like saying that the word "man" in the Bill of Rights can't apply to women today. The classic definition of a word can't define how it stands in modern day society, this has been proven time and time again.
- tripleayex
February 15, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.