TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

homosexual marriage

I have had several conversations about this topic lately and began to think that most people are arguing about two different things. I think before ever talking about it we must define what we believe marriage to be.

For example, I believe a marriage is a union between one man and one woman to love each other and, if God wills, have children. So, with that view of what marriage is, homeosexual marriage is not possible. It isn't that they aren't good enough or are evil, it simply can't happen. I know many people disagree with that definition, and I think that is the major point of argument.

I was wondering what others thought about it?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: If we don't define it, then it has no meaning or value. If we begin to devalue everything due to opposing opinions, humanity becomes rather pointless. If we don't grow up with core family values, which is a growing segment of the population, then we don't understand the value of it at all. We learn value through hardship, discipline, honor, and love. We learn appreciation though hard work and equal reward for that hard work.

    Let's remove the governmental entitlements of legal marriage and then see where this conversation goes.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2012: Wade,
      Every definition I can find includes a legal componant. It would be silly not to consider it, don't you think?

      "Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contrac"

      1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
      b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
      2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
      3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple..."
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: I agree Colleen. I'm just suggesting to remove financial advantage that comes from being married. Primarily tax credits. If all we want is legal recognition to enter into a contract between two people.

        I'd like to believe two people get married out of love for each other. I would hope two people would not get married because it is simply a convenience or creates a financial advantage.

        I think what I'm trying to accomplish is to remove variables to help me discover the importance of being recognized as legally married.
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2012: Hi Wade,
          I believe that two people enter into a legal, committed marriage out of love for each other as well.

          Financial advantage/disadvantage is not the topic of this conversation, nor is it really any of our business why two people choose to make that committment to each other. It is clear that what you are trying to accomplish is to divert the conversation.

          Why are you afraid of same sex marriage/partnerships?
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Wade,

          I would suggest this is about ending discrimination based on sexuality.

          Financial discrimination is part of it.

          Denying same sex couple the symbolic social institution of marriage is another part.

          I doubt if removing the financial rights would eliminate the drive for social and symbolic equality.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: I've read many of your posts Collen and you pull out the diversion card everytime somenes says something you don't agree with. The subject matter is a debate forum on the definition of marriage not a simple gallup poll of for and against.

        You can't talk in much depth about a light bulb without discussing elements of electricity.
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2012: Wade,
          I remind people that they are trying to divert the conversation, when they are trying to divert the conversation.

          You are absolutely correct...we cannot talk about a topic without bringing in all RELEVANT information.

          You stated..."I think what I'm trying to accomplish is to remove variables to help me discover the importance of being recognized as legally married"

          YOU are the one Wade who wanted to remove the legal aspect of marriage.

          Why are you afraid of same sex marriage/partnerships?
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: I have no problem with same sex marriage/partnerships. To each his own. It is their business and as you have stated none of mine. I still, however, can't help recalling some strong words my mother said to me: She says "If we tolerate everything then we don't stand for anything" I love culture and appreciate our differences. I fear we may be entering a society where those unique cultural differences slowly disappear. Metaphorically, removing my olfactory nerve because food has no flavor. I look forward to buying my next car and not having to choose between models and color. They will all be grey and slow. Thanks for your input, much appreciated.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Good point Wade, and I agree with your mom..."if we tolerate everything then we don't stand for anything". What are you "tolerating" regarding same sex marriage?
          See, I am not "tolerating" anything regarding same sex marriage. I simply recognize the right of ALL people to choose who they want as a partner.

          You understand that homosexuality is not a "cultural difference"....right? Homosexuality spans all cultures, and has been practiced throughout history. The only thing we are doing with legalizing same sex partnerships is recognizing that all people have the the same rights under the law.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Wade, the slippery slope argument is a false dichotomy.

          You could connect tolerating women voting to cultural decline or homogenisation - and it would be a false connection.

          We still get to choose what we tolerate. Equal marriage rights for homosexual couples doesn't mean anything goes. Doesn't mean polygamy or forced marriage is okay.

          Each issue on its merits.
      • Jul 30 2012: Is this post to remove the legal aspect of marriage or to acknowledge the fact that today's society views marriage much differently? Colleen, you speak to marriage being out of love for each other but out of breach it becomes a legal contract. If in love, it is a Union of two people working together to form a life against odds stacked, not always, in their favor. A struggle and a daily check of balances of their own happiness measured against the happiness of the unit (the marriage).

        A legal contract has a checklist....Statement of Work actually...what this party will do and what the other party will do and when in breach, it gets negotiated until both parties expire it due to differences.....hence divorce. While all marriages are built on negotiation, love and legal contacts are not synonymous. To be honest, I've known more homosexual couples who respected their love for each other without that legal contract than I have married couples who thought someone owes them something for a ceremony.

        So...if we removed the entitlements of the legal aspects of marriage such as tax credits, insurance, citizenship....how many mature marriages do you think today would be built on love?
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Hi Mia,
          I commented with the post you refer to (I think) because Wade stated...
          " If we don't define it, then it has no meaning or value...Let's remove the governmental entitlements of legal marriage and then see where this conversation goes".

          I provided the definitions, which included legality, and yes, it also shows us that our views of marriage are changeing....at least some of us.

          I believe there are many different factors which influence marriage. My point, throughout this thread, is that everyone has the same rights under the law.

          I totally agree with you....I have also known many same sex couples who respect and love each other without legal contract. I also know many same sex couples who are happy that they can have the same right to be married as everyone else, under the law in this state.

          Sorry, I cannot even begin to answer your question..."how many mature marriages do you think today would be built on love?" I don't know.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: What I fear most is further down the road, long after I've moved on. I fear there will be no discerning characteristics between male and female. Basically becoming an Asexual society. Maybe I'm a dying breed who overly enjoys the natural flavors of life. I guess you could catagoize me as a naturalist if there is such a catagory. So my closing statement would be live love laugh and may no man or law take away your right to choose your life and live it how you want to.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Wade,
          Different sexual orientations have existed since the beginning of humankind. Do you honestly think that after a couple thousand years of different sexual orientations, we are now going to all become Asexual because we recognize same sex partnerships? Think about it my friend:>)

          I also enjoy the "natural flavors of life", and that includes accepting and respecting others, even if they have a different sexual preference than mine. I also am a "naturalist", and I believe everyone has the right to be his/her own "naturalist" as long as it does not adversly impact others. I like and agree with your "closing statement":>)
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Male/Female/Hermaphrodite are biologically different.
          We can celebrate our differences and still have equal rights.
          Equality under the law does not equal absolute sameness.

          All people are a bit different.
          Look at the diversity in society now compared to any time in your life.
          More choice to be who you are or want to be (in some societies)
          I guess I don't share your fear of some bland unisex future.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: I am normally big on dictrioary definitions but this case reminds me of letting nazis define what Jew are. How can we take the defininition of a person or persons who are totally imersed in a world view that does not allow the possibility of the other perspective? In addition, a dictionary must cater to the already common idea of a concept so that does not allow adaptation.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2012: Debra,
          Did you actually look at the definitions, or read other comments? People are asking for accepted definitions of marriage, which I provided. The definitions which are accepted include same sex marriage. I do not understand your objection.

          The accepted definition of marriage in the dictionaries, has included same sex marriage for a long time, as I'm sure you know, and the newer definitions have adapted to reinforce same sex marriage as part of the definition. If you do not have this information, you might check further down in this comment thread to see another older definition I provided, which accepts same sex marriage.

          Honestly Debra, it sometimes seems like you are cranking out so many comments in a short period of time, it appears that many times you are not looking at other comments to evaluate the content or context. In this case you are simply contradicting yourself....in an attempt to contradict me??? LOL:>)
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: You know what, Collen, thank you. I thought I did and yet you are right. I must have jumped the gun. I accept that critique and it was partially based on the actors involved. This is a rare event and you are absolutely in error regarding my record but that is not surprising because you have never had a charitable moment towards me. Thanks for the valid part. I will be more vigilant.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2012: I understand Debra, that your comment was because of the "actors" involved rather than the actual information.

          I have reached out to you Debra because I care about you, and if you want to continue to say that I "have never had a charitable moment" towards you, or that I am passive agressive, or abusive, as you have labeled me, that is a choice you make. I choose to continue to treat you with kindness and respect NO MATTER WHAT!

          But...this discussion is not about you and me Debra, it is about homosexual marriage, which I wholeheartedly support, as I have throughout this comment thread. I have many friends with different sexual orientations, and I would sincerely like them to all have the right to be in relationship with the same legal rights as everyone else. I am grateful and proud to live in one of the first states in the USA to legalize same sex marriage:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.