Why redefine marriage to include gay people?

Because "civil partnership" does not provide the same benefits as a certificate of marriage does.

If "civil partnership" were to be legally recognized as the SAME legal state as marriage, I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

As it is now though, Civil partners would have to sign appx. 5000 legal documents to get the SAME benefits married couples get with a marriage certificate.

It's a LEGAL issue, not a religious one. No church or religious clergy are going to be "forced" into performing marriages for anyone. That is just right-wing lying propaganda.

The gay community isn't redefining marriage - it has always been about one person loving another. Gays often feel like saying marriage is definitive, whereas a partnership is just ... well, it isn't perceived as love. Civil partnership isn't enough because ... well, again, it isn't love. When you get married someday, how would you like it if no one recognized your marriage? If they called you two "Civil partners" and wouldn't refer to you as husband and wife? It wouldn't be nice. Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else. We should either ban the use of the word "marriage" for everyone, or give them equal rights. Its legal segregation, banning gay marriage. In the 50's, white people would have better water fountains, etc, than black people. Black people were upset by this. So they got the rights that everyone should be able to have the same rights. Just because you give someone something, it doesn't mean it isn't as good as what everyone else has. Henceforth, the gay community deserves the same rights as the straight community. If black = white, why can't gay = straight?

What difference does it possibly make to you how a CIVIL marriage between two strangers is defined? It's none of your goddamned business, Sunshine.

There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the marriage equality concept that says ANY church has to marry a same-sex couple. Churches have ALWAYS had the liberty to impose their bigotry on their own congregations, because belonging to a church is not required by law. Thank you, Thomas Jefferson.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."-TJ Jan. 1, 1802

The issue here is not religious rights. It is CIVIL rights. And nobody "loses" civil rights because other people gain them. Non-Caucasians and women are now able to vote. Does that mean white men somehow lost the right to vote? I don't think so. Biracial couples can marry Does that mean couples of the same race lost their civil rights? Well, no.

Marriage is whatever a society deems necessary. For the Hopi, it was a woman who owned property marrying enough men to work the land. In biblical times, it was one man and however many women he could get his hands on (contrary to propaganda, the most common form of marriage in the bible is NOT one man/one woman, it's polygamy.)

Marriage was not a "sacrament" in the Christian church until AD 1215, at which time it was added to prevent PRIESTS from leaving property to their children. That's right. The celibacy of the clergy was not about holiness, it was about money.

http://jplaj.hubpages.com/hub/marriageas%E2%80%A6

Marriage in today's society is a binding legal agreement that establishes joint property and next-of-kin rights for two people who have chosen to spend their lives together. It also allows for protection of children of that union. According to a study at UCLA, half of all lesbians under 50 are raising children. They have the right to marry a partner and give those kids protection in case they die.

People who oppose marriage equality ought to actually READ the bible. It specifically forbids divorce, adultery, eating pork, eating shellfish, shaving, haircuts, and a bunch of other things. No sane person takes all that crap literally.

The federal government cannot define or redefine marriage.

The state government cannot define or redefine marriage.

Gay people cannot define or redefine marriage.

The definition and purpose of marriage were established by God and He does not change His words, definitions and purposes to accommodate the lifestyle habits and sexual preferences of human beings.

Man with man or woman with woman may be joined together but they will not be married.

No matter what human beings decide marriage cannot be redefined because the definition and purpose of marriage will never be changed by the Originator of marriage.

Why not?

You put this question under religion which I assume means that you belive that marriage is apart of religion. Not every marriage is made "in the eyes of God." Look at Las Vegas, look at civil marriages, religion is not exactly in sight there.

Marriage is essentially a social contract.Civil Partnerships arn't treated the same way as marriages are. There are certain rights that are denied civil partners especially when their partner dies.

How would they be hijacking the word? They want to be given this equal right that has been denied to them for so long.

It isn't currently defined as a heterosexual thing by anyone other than those who want it to mean that. Why don't you morons who care just invent a new word for your magical holy hetero unions? I mean, we heteros already mess up marriage at a ridiculous rate, it's not like we have set the standard really high.

Remember "separate but equal"? Why not have gay restaurants and gay bathrooms, etc just like used ot be done to black people in the early part of the 1900's through the 60's? You know interracial marriage was illegal most places for a long time, right? You aren't whining about that, and yet it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Uhm, you don't actually come out and say it, but ... You're a Christian, right? And your religion says that one man and one woman promising to stay together for life, in a church, is what a marriage is, right?

Well, my friend, that is only the norm here (North America) because Christians make up the majority of the population.

And I have bad news for you: Christians did not invent marriage. Nor did the Jews. And, hey, even in your own Bible that wasn't the only type of marriage mentioned. Most of the Old Testament guys were into polygamy (especially that Solomon dude!) with official and condoned concubines besides. And I sure don't remember your god telling any of them that they were going to hell for it.

"Marriage" had existed in other cultures long before the Bible was even written down. And people of other faiths have different ides of what marriage should be.

So, my response is: Where do you get off defining "marriage" so narrowly? There is no "redefinition" of marriage to accommodate gay people: They are two loving adults who are promising to stay together for life.

That is what marriage is all about.

Christians do not have exclusive rights to the word "marriage" nor the only legitimate definition of marriage.

Grow up, quit whining, and quit thrusting your nose into other people's business.

From what was it redefined? Today, among most Christians, it means union of one man and one woman. Yet the Bible does not back that up. Several Biblical characters were married to several, even hundreds of women as is the case with Solomon. To many Muslims in the Middle East, it means one man and many women.

Hijack the term? Seriously? You really think a term can be hijacked? Well then, I guess all the pagans who say Christians STOLE our holidays is true?

The reality of this is, society determines how it will view such things. One group doesn't get to define it for everyone else just because they happen to be the majority. And, since it doesn't seem you are actually reading up on the issue, they can't get the same rights under "civil unions" as they can with marriage according to our Secular laws. Note - they are Secular Laws... not religious ones and they are not based on any religious concept of such things either. If they were, polygamy would be legal.

What is the end? Why does it matter what they want to label relationships in their community? Why do you get so offended by a community you are not apart of? Your question is phrased in a manner that implies they don't deserve the same benefits that you are entitled. Why should you be allowed that title and others are viewed as less deserving? The idea it is a holy union is a joke. If it was about being a holy union, you should also be attacking justices of the peace and ship captains that marry people all the time. After all they are not appointed by god. Other than reference to a religious text, nobody ever gives a reasonable answer to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. It always falls on ignorant religious beliefs or a redneck attitude that they are undeserving. Simply put let them call themselves what they want. How does it affect you? It doesn't! Why should they not be allowed the pursuits of happiness that you enjoy? They shouldn't! The saddest part of this tired argument is if your question was rephrased to read why shouldn't marriage include gay people, you wouldn't have a sane answer. You would just come off sounding like a homophobe that believes in a magical person in the sky that has given you a set of rules passed along from generation to generation of fellow homophobes. The only down side is you probably wish prior to civil rights you would have labeled black marriages as civil unions. This way people like you could continue to be special and elite.

They just want to be treated the same as everyone else. What's so controversial about that?

As a married woman, I would have no problem with gay people also being able to get married. I think anyone who worries that it somehow tarnishes the sanctity of marriage must be insecure in their own relationship. How somebody else chooses to conduct their marriage has no bearing on anyone else's! Furthermore, it is the shockingly high divorce and adultery rate that tarnishes the sanctity of marriage, and straight folk manage that all on their own.

It's about equality It's a very simple moral conundrum. Children can see it it's that obvious. I'll admit we should ditch the word marriage, associated as it is with the awfully primitive Christian idea of ownership of a person.