Isn't it opposing on the rights of heterosexuals if you call same sex unions,,,marriage?

Question

marriage was made exclusivley by heterosexuals for heterosexuals,,,,marriage is all about heterosexuality,,,it is thier right to keep it that way,,,gays can have the same benifits as marriage but to ask for the same title is just arrogant,,,the aclu actually infringes on civil liberties in an effort to protect them,,,,Gays are saying you can't have that thing marriage as you created,,,Gays had no part in the original creation af the marriage sacrement and legality,,,,,,gays scream no fair I want that,,,well they CAN have the rights,,,but the title and essence of the true marriage is only for heteros,,,,nobody is looking out for the rights of heteros

Answer 1

please get an education before you subject anyone else to your moronic opinion.

Answer 2

I have no idea where you are getting your information but the statement that marriage is by definition "heterosexual" is a bald faced lie. Marriage was originally a legal contract, like any other partnership, and could be entered into by any willing parties. Even Christians allowed same-sex marriage until the 10th century, when it was banned by the Pope, a decree which is the reason it is not allowed in the U.S. If you look at world history you will find that polygamy, polyandry, same-sex, open marriages, line marriages, even marriages with expiration dates that had to be renewed, like drivers licenses, have all been common practice. Monogamous hetero lifelong marriage is actually one of the rarer and least success full forms, why else would there be so many failed ones? You do realize that the same heteros that are screaming for their right to the "sacred nature of marriage" are the ones cheating on their spouses, right?

Answer 3

Yes, and separate but equally effectively created racial equality... as all the blacks in the back of the bus would attest.

Personally, I don't care what the label is as long as there's serious movement towards equal treatment, rights and privledges.

A couple other thoughts...

The marriage license granted by the government is a civil contract, a legal document. There was a time when that document meant that all of a woman's posessions became the man's and the woman was left with ownership of nothing. It has evolved over time even if you aren't familiar with those changes.

Marriage within the context of religion is what defines the moral nature of marriage, and it varies from faith to faith. If that's not the case, please explain why the government has no problem issuing marriage licenses to athiests, or convicted wife batterers and child abusers for that matter. (Ironically, there already are a lot of churches that do marry homosexuals.)

Homosexuals pay a lot in taxes, an awful lot, as much as anyone else. I'm never going to understand those who bring up the added cost to government since we pay in for others to receive which is a financially punitive inequality. (I realize this is not your issue, but it is brought up by others so I thought I'd toss it in.)

And one last thought, a little off topic but related. The Civil Rights amendment provided legal protections to people of all races, creeds, *religions*, etc. The ADA extended those same protections to those with handicaps (used for lack of a more PC term). Only 10 of the 50 states extend the same protections to homosexuals, AND when that issue is raised in the other 40 states, the answer seems to be that gays are asking for something special that others haven't already had codified in law.

Just my thoughts for which you asked.

Answer 4

I would really like to see you at the creation of the word "marriage"... it didn't even envolve love, just interest for parents or worse, just the interest of the husband... read the early history and tell me if you would like it... and the marriage was for a reproductive purpose. so now tell me, for a couple who can't have kids on their own (there wasn't such thing as adoption by the common people), they should have created another word for marriage, right?
the word "marriage", the church had nothin to do with it... you see were u confused? it became a sacrement later, with Roman Church christianity (which actually led to the decline of the Empire)... they stopped doing only religious matters to include civil matters... so your right on the word marriage as a sacrement doesn't even make sens...
marriage legality? oh my God! you would be a woman married for having kids, in the Roman Republic, a minimum of 3, then the concubines give the others. In the Classical Greece you would have less importance than a prositute, and "just" your murder was punished. If that legality didn't change to suit you women, I don't think you would have even wanted to marry someone! That lead me to say that it's a flexible word. it changes as the times change. it's not as rigide as your narrow mind...

Answer 5

No, it relatively is not opposing the rights of heterosexuals. confident, marriages have been created via church for the opposit intercourse: yet, in todays society you would be married at city workplace or via a Notary Republic. Marriage is a settlement between 2 human beings. They artwork their total lives to purchase a house, enhance a kin, pay charges, taxes, and grant for an further. that's what a marriage is approximately, no longer what intercourse you're. playstation i'm heteros, I see no longer something incorrect with it.

Answer 6

Are you kidding? how could allowing gay partners to marry take away from a hetero marriage?? A marriage is two people who love each other solidifying their relationship. Legally it allows the the two partners to combine their lives and share many things you cannot if you are unmarried. For instance, I have lived in a hetero relationship with my partner for 7 years. We have 2 children together and I just got a job with great benefits. Because we are not married, I can't include him in my health insurance and he can't even use my discount card to buy stuff for our children. Marriage is something we have been discussing, but at least we have a choice.

Answer 7

I thought marriage was about love, not heterosexuality... huh, I guess I was wrong... and asking for gay marriage isn't impeding on the rights of heteros... tell me, what threat does it pose to your marriage if we're married too? And last I checked, we stood for liberty and justice for all... where's our liberty if we can have the rights, but not the respect of the name?

Answer 8

HUH???? what planet are you calling from...heterosexuals already have all the rights...nobody looking out for the rights of heteros....please reread your question it doesn't make any sense...and furthermore you assume that marriage has something to do with religion...not true...it has more to do with economics and business deals than the church.

Answer 9

Marriage was made by societies that are predominately heterosexual. Since societies include homosexuals, I think marriage should be available for them.

The definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and the tradition is so old that the original intentions cannot really be traced.

Fix your comma key, idiot.

Answer 10

That's about as lame an exuse as I've heard yet.

That's like saying marriage was for whites only, or that inter-faith couples shouldn't marry, or that women shouldn't vote or that white men shouldn't play basketball.

Get over your selfish self.

If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one...but leave us alone.

Answer 11

I don't so much have a problem with 'civil unions' between gays as this recurring notion that such a union is 'holy matrimony.'

Gay couples should have all the civil rights of property, inheritance, power of attorney, and so forth that straight couples have in marriage.

I just don't think it's 'holy matrimony' which is what 'marriage' has always been in my orientation to the world.

I'm willing to rethink my definition as long as there is this distinction.