OT - how would you feel about this?

[Twingle]

My DH and I were at a couples retreat this past weekend, and there was material that stated "a marriage is between a man and a woman, because gays are so forward thinking, surely they can think of a better term for their partnership than marriage".

I was offended. I think that this is one more bias in regards to the gay/lesbian/transgendered community - that if you're gay you are . . . trendy is the word that comes to mind, but that makes me think of Bobby Trendy, and that's not where I'm going with this.

My husband thinks I'm reading too far into it, my gay and straight friends think it's funny, and are trying to think of a new term for their relationships.

Would that statement have bothered you?

 

[CanadianGuy]

Personally I'm not offended by this.. but that's me. It's easy for me to say that as gays and lesbians CAN marry in Canada.

Should I ever find myself being committed.. I mean.. committing myself.. I mean.. Uhh.....

[I'm not making this any better am I?]

Umm.. how about partnered? I doubt I'll consider using the term marriage.. But that's my personal choice and not a reflection of a deep held political belief about marriage.



Knox

 

[Weeziblu]

Personally, I think the statement is ignorant and inflammatory and ment to grab attention. I don't think I'd have been personally offended by it. However, I'm not gay. My sister on the other hand, may have.

Let me ask you a questions... this retreat you attended, was it religious based?

I have been having discussions recently about the terms "marriage" and "civil union" being used interchangable. In my mind, if two people are in a committed relationship and choose to spend the rest of their lives together, they should be allowed to "marry". I think one of the reasons people have such a hard time referring to civil unions as a "marriage" is because marriage - in many instances - carries a religions connotation

For instance, if you are Catholic, marriage - or matrimony - is actually a sacrament. And it is defined as (loosely interpreted here.. ) a holy union between a man and a woman.. blah, blah, blah. And okay - they can choose to allow whatever they want within their guidelines as a union recognized by the church.

While marriages aren't always performed by religious individuals, historically I think it is what people are accostomed to. That being said, if you are Catholic and are married outside of the church by an officient, your marriage is technically not recognized either.

And so what this comes back to is the separation of church and state. If If the term "marriage" is used to interpret a union recognized by a particular religious group then so be it. Then from my point of view, anyone not married in a "religious" ceremony is also joined in a civil union, if you will.

I kind of look at it from a let-them-keep-their-term perspective. I was "married" by a Catholic priest in a full-on religious ceremony and later found out that same priest - a close family friend - had molested my brothers. Now, the church still recognizes my "marriage" but I have to tell you, I feel cheated that the filthy criminal's name is on my "marriage" license forever. It is obsurd that an organization who doesn't recognize marriages outside of its four walls will still validate a marriage performed by someone who molests little boys.

I may be looking at this too simplistically as I am not directly affected - and I do not intend to be offensive in any way. I'd be perfectly fine to call my "marriage" a civil union because ultimately what matters most is that each union be afforded the same priviledges under the law. Civil unions are now allowed in my state. Hooray for progress! Hooray for open minds and tolerance and acceptance!

Ultimately, people who are offended by gay relationships or "against" them are usually religious people who like to remind us what God intended. Personally, I think they need to spend more time remembering that God really wants us all to love one another without judgement. They need to stop worrying about everyone else and take a long hard look in the mirror. "Love they neighbor" stands out in my mind. I think God is more than capable of doing His job. And in the end, He will judge us all as He sees fit.

*stepping off my soap box now*

(more than you asked for, right? LOL)

 

[Twingle]

Personally, I think the statement is ignorant and inflammatory and ment to grab attention. I don't think I'd have been personally offended by it. However, I'm not gay. My sister on the other hand, may have.

That is what I thought - ignorant being the main opinion.

Let me ask you a questions... this retreat you attended, was it religious based?

No, not religious based. There is a groups in the town I live in that promotes communication - that is who sponsered this retreat. The "couples" could be business partners, married couples, dating couples, friends, etc.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Courtesy of M-W online dictionary (it was quicker than going to the office for mine)

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : 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 (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


Offended (as asked by the OP)? No, but wary of associating with a group that would say that. Red flags are good warnings, and that would be a red flag for me.

However, civil union, marriage, partnership, common law... whatever.

Two people love each other. They share their lives together with or without benefit of clergy or civil law. The part that really offends me is that there are categories of people who are not allowed to use the clergy or civil law if they so choose. That's the offense. That's the obscenity.

 

[Weeziblu]

No, not religious based. There is a groups in the town I live in that promotes communication - that is who sponsered this retreat. The "couples" could be business partners, married couples, dating couples, friends, etc.

Interesting. Then I fully support my initial notion that the statement was meant to invoke a reaction.

I agree with the previous poster about the red flag. I'd be wary of associating with a group who would say that.

 

[Boston5602]

I kind of look at it from a let-them-keep-their-term perspective. I was "married" by a Catholic priest in a full-on religious ceremony and later found out that same priest - a close family friend - had molested my brothers. Now, the church still recognizes my "marriage" but I have to tell you, I feel cheated that the filthy criminal's name is on my "marriage" license forever. It is obsurd that an organization who doesn't recognize marriages outside of its four walls will still validate a marriage performed by someone who molests little boys.

I may be looking at this too simplistically as I am not directly affected - and I do not intend to be offensive in any way. I'd be perfectly fine to call my "marriage" a civil union because ultimately what matters most is that each union be afforded the same priviledges under the law. Civil unions are now allowed in my state. Hooray for progress! Hooray for open minds and tolerance and acceptance!

<EDITED from original >

I do not wish your marriage to be invalidated , but WOW. You bring up a good point in that if they remove a priest for molestation , and that he is not a vestle of god and then for his historical acts of sin all along to be " extracted " from his priestly duties is just another way of them saying we don't actually believe what we teach. We will not love you even after Jesus forgave you .


Back to the OP , if the term marriage was not included in any legal terms, I wouldn't care. If it was kept solely to a religous aspect then fine. WE as a nation use that term in both though, and I do find it inflammatory to use it at a non religous retreat.

We all know we are "suppose" to be a nation of equals with each of us entitled to our own beliefs. I do not want any law changing to suit my rights that restricts the freedom anyone enjoys in THEIR house of worship. Outside that house of worship though we should all be enjoying the same rights through our secular government.

HUGELY OFF TOPIC I may not put my words properly in a post , I mean no disrespect at all ,these are just my personal beliefs.

My GOD instructed me years ago to marry a man. For a long time he left us to our own. Then came a time he looked down and saw the destruction we've caused his planet and life on it. The only way to stop the destruction of my GOD's creation , as he told me , have less people . This marriage of two people of the opposite sex leads mostly to more people and an overpopulation of his creation. Gay people are the salvation of all of GOD's creations.

When I am asked by another man to do GOD's work and marry him , I shall let the federal government know they are infriging upon the lord's work and let me exercise my personal religouse freedom that we all have in this country.


Respectfully
Boston

 

[Kate70410]

"a marriage is between a man and a woman, because gays are so forward thinking, surely they can think of a better term for their partnership than marriage".



I find it offensive because it makes a joke of something that is not a joke at all. In the state I live in, civil unions are now legal. My partner and I are getting civilly united in July and are really excited about it. My question is why should be HAVE to think of another name for our unions when our unions are no different than that of straight people?? By being asked to do that..we are treated like second class citizens and it's wrong. Now if we only used marriage as a religious thing and civil unions as unions created by a justice of the peace or something, that would be one thing, but we don't. By making a statement like they did above, it like they are trying to come up with a reason for their discrimination. That's disgusting as far as I'm concerned, and to use a stereotype to justify it to boot! When straight people get married, either by law or by a church, it's called marriage and why are they any special than we are?? They aren't so they shouldn't be granted special rights as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Twingle]

Thanks for all of your opinions everyone - like I said, I found that statement offensive.

 

[Viki]

This discussion is right up my alley and as a religious professional, who has presided over 20+ marriages and more than a few holy unions, but who has never been afforded the blessing being able to "marry" myself (though partner and I are now celebrating 21 years of "marital" bliss) I have a very opinions on the topic.

For one, I don't think any worshipping community should be in the business of legalizing any union. With this, curiously enough, I agree with the reformer Martin Luther, who said leave marriage to the civil authorities. The reason for this is simple, far from viewing marriage as a sacrament (a ritual practice where through word and action God's presence is perceived through faith), the reformers said the opposite and that is that any two people of any or NO faith can marry. Thus marriage per se is not sacramental (this apart from the idea of blessing a marriage, which is not the same thing as legalizing one).

I agree. Keep it simple. Still, because parishioners want me to I officiate at weddings. But I would prefer if all of them, between any number of genders (remember folk there are more than two), were conceived of, if not called, CIVIL UNIONS. The truth is, viewed rightly, faith traditions have very little stake in whether their followers are married or not, but political realities do. Localities, states, and federal expressions of the body politic base lots of really meaty civic realities, like taxes and child welfare laws, on familial partnerships. All well and good. I have absolutely no problem with that. But let's keep family out of church!

 

[RandiB]

I have no idea how I ended up at this post....

I am offended by the statement.

I am so sick of hearing about how marriage is such a special thing between a man and a woman, if half the marriages in the US end in divorce, I can't believe everyone takes it seriously.

If anything, I think letting any two consenting adults marry would create more respect for the institution, maybe even skew the statistics in the favor of marriages not ending in divorce.

I'm a romantic, if anyone wants to give forever a shot, I say go for it.

 

[ConcKahuna]

... Personally, I think they need to spend more time remembering that God really wants us all to love one another without judgement. They need to stop worrying about everyone else and take a long hard look in the mirror. "Love they neighbor" stands out in my mind. I think God is more than capable of doing His job. And in the end, He will judge us all as He sees fit.

*stepping off my soap box now*

(more than you asked for, right? LOL)

 

[SkyMedik]

It's highly offensive. For the reasons already stated, which I will not rehash.

However....seperate but equal went away long ago. What right does anyone have to tell me that I can't be married before God? While I admit that I would begrudgingly enter into a 'civil union' to obtain the blanket rights that I should have as a married individual, no one has the right to tell me MY God doesn't recognize my love and bless it just the same as anyone else.
Anything less than what heterosexuals have is not equality. Love is Love is Love.

 

[Tinkerboy00]

My personal thought, for my partner and I, is that we dont need the have it be called a marriage.

I just want the same rights that straight marriages have. All that that encompasses for straights, should be the same for me.

I would just be happy to have the right to have that. Call it whatever you want IMO, I just want the right to be married.

 

[resol37]

The thing that struck me the most was how flippant it sounded. Like how you would talk to someone who doesn't understand. Something about the word, "surely". I don't know if "offended" would be quite the right word I'd use. To me, and this is just my opinion as a straight woman, it's more something that I'd roll my eyes and move on about. Not that I don't take this issue seriously, but I'd be more willing to put my energies towards something more consequential than the phrasing. I say call a hootenanny as long as it recognized legally. Especially since there's not too heck of a lot sacred left in heterosexual marriage today. It's decided...when I find a man, we're applying for a hootenanny license!

 

[Mama Twinkles]

I agree that it's offensive for all the reasons listed. But if we have to coin our own term, let's call gay unions "real marriages."

 

[Weeziblu]

But if we have to coin our own term, let's call gay unions "real marriages."

Very clever! I love it!

 

[Mama Twinkles]

Very clever! I love it!

Thanks! It was a rare inspired moment.

 

[mttafire]

My DH and I were at a couples retreat this past weekend, and there was material that stated "a marriage is between a man and a woman, because gays are so forward thinking, surely they can think of a better term for their partnership than marriage".

I was offended. I think that this is one more bias in regards to the gay/lesbian/transgendered community - that if you're gay you are . . . trendy is the word that comes to mind, but that makes me think of Bobby Trendy, and that's not where I'm going with this.

My husband thinks I'm reading too far into it, my gay and straight friends think it's funny, and are trying to think of a new term for their relationships.

Would that statement have bothered you?

NOPE, Not at all. I am rapidly growing tired of all the "Offended" people out there. I understand issues we face BUT its time we stop using the word Offended. I have learned to grow thick skin and go on with my life. And whether i like it or not 99% of married folks are a man and a woman so...I guess it IS appropriate for that statement.

 

[RickinNYC]

NOPE, Not at all. I am rapidly growing tired of all the "Offended" people out there. I understand issues we face BUT its time we stop using the word Offended. I have learned to grow thick skin and go on with my life. And whether i like it or not 99% of married folks are a man and a woman so...I guess it IS appropriate for that statement.

And THIS statement is exactly why the original is so offensive. Until you walk a mile as the saying goes, but then again, I would never expect someone who is obviously closed minded to understand. So your argument carries no water. But I think your opinion needs to stay here for all to see just to show that there are those out there who feel it's their personal responsibility, as a direct result of their ignorance, that we still have a fight ahead of us.

If you feel that equality is only for certain people, then you clearly do not have any sense what the word "equal" means. If you feel that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then perhaps you should look into your own relationship and really understand what is driving your opinion. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to yourself and not what others are doing privately.

To the OP, yes, the statement was offensive. To mttafire, because you seem to be so flip about the word "offensive", how about, yes, the statement would downright piss me off.

The heterosexual community does NOT own the word "marriage" but if the term "civil union" or "commitment ceremony" makes them hush the heck up because they are getting embroiled in semantics, then have it. I'm all for getting civil unioned or whatever the term du jour might be.

People who tend to be so emotionally invested in what homosexuals are doing behind closed doors just confuse me. They always make me wonder exactly why they are just so darned interested to begin with.