I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Most of the arguing against gay marriages that I’ve typed has been from the position that it will have negative affects on us that could/should be avoided. It comes from a simple thought that if we label gay marriage as marriage then I can ”marry’ my buddy so he can get in on my insurance plan while making it cheaper for me. I mean, he’s out there riding dirtbikes with me uninsured, it’s the least I could do for him, being a good riding buddy and all. I think that if there’s reasons that I would take advantage of gay marriages, then other people must have other reasons too.People have said that bogus marriages are an option for heteros already so this shouldn’t be a problem. The reason I don’t see it that way is that I didn’t consider a bogus marriage with a girl and only considered a bogus marriage in the light of the gay marriage talk. And I only considered a bogus marriage with a guy and not a girl.I think one of the things I realized is that I want to have a legitimate marriage (like, a Catholic one) someday** and if I’ve already been married, it kinda screws that up. So, if we call gay marriages just marriages, then I can’t take advantage of the benefits without smudging my later legitimate marriage. If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) my buddy to do him a favor and get him some good cheap healthcare (and make it cheaper for me too). Then, later on we can get divorced and even later I can really get married in a big ceremony and all that.I don’t want to deny gay people rights but I do want to keep the definition of marriage. I think we should use a different word for gay marriages.I was thinking about this last night before I went to sleep and now, this morning, I’m having trouble putting it together. I was hoping if I just started typing it out I could make some sense outta myself and if I post it here then you all can help me iron out the wrinkles, or maybe talk type some sense into me.**maybe I should elaborate here so I don’t get bitched at. I’m not saying that only Catholic marriages are legitimate, I’m saying that someday I would want a marriage in my religion, one that I, personally, consider legitimate.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

Its not that I don't consider a fake marriage with a girl to be bogus. The gender doesn't make it more or less bogus of a marriage. I was saying that I never considered entering a bogus marriage with a girl and now that we're talking about gays getting married, I started considering a bogus marriage. And I wouldn't consider entering one with a girl although I would consider entering one with a guy.Its from how I look at marriage that one with a guy wouldn't be legitimate (WRT my religion) in the first place so I would have less of a problem with a bogus one. With a girl, if I entered a bogus marriage, it would have an affect on my later, legitimate marriage. This is most likely the case. No, I don't. I'm not worried about the gay people doing it just for the benefits, I'm worried about the straight people posing as gays getting married so they can get the benefits. (heh, maybe if they had to make-out when they sign the paper work it would be enough of a deterant, j/k.) No, I realise that, its not wierd. I think when marrage was intended to be heterosexual. We can let gay people do it too lets just call it something else instead of redefining marriage, which has an affect on my outlook on marriage. Thats fine but can't we just leave the word marriage and its definition alone and accomplish the same thing by adding a new word?

Yeah, but I never considered entering a bogus marriage with a girl. I think its because I don't want to belittle a legitimate marriage that I might have in the future. I don't care if its with a guy because it couldn't have been a legitimate marriage in the first place. Yep, there'd have to be a pre-nup. At least if I kick his ass for taking my dirtbike I won't be looked down upon for hitting a girl. I attended a wedding that wasn't at a Catholic church because the groom was divorced and the priest wouldn't marry them. Maybe some other priest would have, but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage, not what other think. But it did exist. Even if it legally didn't exist, I would know that it did, really. But couldn't we use use a different word so I don't have to keep my conscience clear and forget all about it. I don't think we'd be screwing over thousands of gay couples by using a different word. The word means something to me, I don't want to change it. I'd change that fairly to a very. Thats why I don't like the idea of opening up the possibility of me entering a bogus marriage. I wouldn't do it with a girl, but let me do it with a guy and I will, enter a bogus marriage that is. And yes I'd be being dishonest. Is there some standard or minimal terms that are required? Can there be any terms for a marriage? Their desires for marriage create an obstacle for me, if they just used a different word I'd feel better about it.

This line makes me not want to reply.

So if I got married then I'd have to get a civil union too?

But what about the people who don't have a personal problem with it? They'd be bucking the system, I think we should try to prevent that.

No it doesn't require regular marriage to be barred. Bogus marriages aren't much of, if any of, a problem (mostly immigration problems). I'm saying that we'll have more bogus marriages and more problems if gay marriages are just lumped into marriages.Schraf was asking for data or somehting to back up this claim but I'm just saying this as an opinion. Its just something I think will happen so I don't support gay marriage, but becuase I lack any evidence, I refrain from actively opposing it. The opinion comes form my views on who I would bogus marry and why. I see marriage as commiting myself to someone before god and before the state. Commitment before the state is going to become meaningless to me, except for the legal ramification, and a part of marriage is removed. Calling gay marriage "marriage" cheapens or belittles my outlook on marriage and I don't want that to happen to it either.Even just changing the first letter to G and calling it Garriage makes it better. They have their own thing and I have mine (or we have ours). I don't want the current "marriage" to be changed to include something that isn't marriage in my opinion. I do think they should have the rights, though.crap, gotta do some work, i have more to type but I'm out of time.

Neither do I.You made some good points but I'm not very interested in discussing the political problems. It is annoying how everything changes around election time, though.Allow me to point out to you that I don't consider myself a part of the religious right.

Well, thats one of my reasons for not supporting gay marriages. I can accept that some people don't consider it rational. But are we legally required to include them as long as we don't prohibit them? I mean, passing a law that prohibits gay marriage is different than doing nothing and leaving them out of it, right? I think we should have a new type of marriage for gay people and then incorporate that into the laws. Nope. When I get married, I see the ceremony before god and the paperwork at the courthouse as one big thing. Not two seperate things. The atheists can leave the whole god part out and just do the legal thing. But to seperate them for me would be like getting married twice, once for god and once for the state. No, you don't have to get maried in a church. But if you do get married in a church you do have to go down to the courthouse too. I think its part of the whole ceremony. This is kinda a segway to the stuff I was typing in the other thread about how I don't like the idea of just including the gay marriages in with marriage in the laws and statutes. I was saying that gay marriages weren't considered when some of the laws were written, much like race wasn't, and even though it worked for race to just include it, its my opinion that gay won't work as well. This opinion comes from the stuff I was typing in the OP about how I might react to a simple inclusion of gay into marriage.

<.<>.>who?

Because I think other people will take advantage of it too and WRT healthcare, when enough people buck the system it will have a negetive impact on my healthcare, even if I am blind and deaf to gay marriage.OTOH, being totally ignorant of gay marriages would probably solve the problem I have with the actual marrying part of it, unless something changes that affects what normally would happen in my getting married (at the courthouse perhaps).

Yeah, I understand that, no arguments there. So you shouldn't equate the lack of inclusion with prohibition, which I think you did earlier, IIRC. Right, which is why you won't see me out there fighting against gay marriages. But I do think it is reason enough to continue to not support gay marriage. Agreed. Don't prohibit their 'marriages' because of religious objection, but do the religious a favor and come up with a new word to describe their union. But there is still the issue of the ambiguity of the word marriage in the laws and statutes. Anywhere the word marrige is written should include 'gay marriage' as well? I said that gay wasn't considered when some of the laws and statutes were written so maybe that should be considered before all the gay marriages are just lumped in there. If a whole new word was created, it could be added into the laws and statues as neccessary. Might be a bad idea, i dunno, but I think lumping gay in there is a bad idea. I think it will open the laws up for exploitation much like the healthcare issue I have.

There is more to it than the name though. I don't think thats a good idea for reasons I've typed here and there.

and I think they are trying to define it as it was originally intended. Yes, now we have a group that wasn't originally considered in marriage that wants to be a part of it. I don't think they should be excluded from the benefits of a federally recognized union, I just don't think they should be included in marriages. I don't equate not including with actively excluding. To fail to include someone is not the same as purposfully excluding them.I have reasons for not wanting to include them. They might not be 'good' reasons, but they are still reasons.I don't have any reason for actively excluding them and thats not what I want to do.I just don't think we should lump gay marriages in with marriages beause they weren't originnaly intended in the definition and I think throwing them in there opens it up for problems. We should do something different.

Well, I was talking about legitimate in my opinion but lets not digress. It becomes different, to me, when religion is considered. This is in the context of whether or not the fake marriage is with a guy or a girl. Combined with all of the other people's dishonesty and it could become everyone's problem. That's what I think we should avoid. That's why I don't support calling gay-marriages marriage. No, that doesn't make any sense to me.