Should the thousands of years old definition of marriage (man and women) be changed, or should gays be allowed civil unions equal to a marriage.

Posted by: xhammy

For thousands of years even predating known human history a marriage has been defined as specifically man and woman, the LGBT community has fought to change the definition of marriage to occomidate thier definitions but do you think they should fight for civil unions (a more accurate term) to be equal to marriages?

25 Total Votes

Change the definition of marriage

Honestly, I cannot think of a reasonable argument for this, its harder to do, has no benefit as apposed to the other option. I am sure some people out there can think of one so for a description just look in the comments
15 votes

Allow civil unions to be equal to marriage

It would be far easier as it would not enrage religious people into having a term they believe God invented changed to the beliefs of "perverts" and give the same benefit to homosexuals as changing the term.
10 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Stefy says2015-04-29T16:48:59.4018838-05:00
One man one woman has not been the deifinition of marriage for thousands of years. Judeo Christian cultures had polygamy and some cultures had way over two genders and allowed same gender marriage.
Apokiliptik says2015-04-29T16:52:55.6860310-05:00
Stefy, what cultures had same sex unions?
Prole says2015-04-29T17:11:18.5840838-05:00
Biased choices, but to be honest, marriage has never been about man and woman, it is simply a bond between two HUMANS who love each other.
PetersSmith says2015-04-29T17:48:55.4796838-05:00
It's not really the "definition" of marriage. That's just what it said in a religious text and thus should not be used as law for a secular government.
TBR says2015-04-29T18:36:04.2616941-05:00
Agree with all posters so far. That is YOUR definition, but regardless, marriage, not civil unions.
PericIes says2015-04-29T18:56:27.6956068-05:00
He said "man and woman," not "one man one woman." Not taking sides, but thought I'd point that out. Also, original poster: spelling. Do it correctly. XD
Stefy says2015-04-29T19:11:38.0570501-05:00
Apokiliptik: Throughout history it was practiced in parts of ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Spart, the Dorian Island if Thera, 2nd century Rome, the Celts, the Gauls, the Sioux, the Cheyenne, thw Chinese probince of Fujian. In varying different ways/degrees but all had some degree of acceptence for a union equal to marriage for gays or lesbians.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-04-29T21:08:02.8804583-05:00
Marriage has never been between man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman. Marriage has never been between individuals. It is a joining of two families.
litinin says2015-04-30T14:46:41.2390866-05:00
What about common sense? One man one woman, some children, no cheating, no being selfish and actually live a decent civil life and do not bend or break the rules of nature. Let's be honest and look at things for waht they are, there is not one clean, decent or natural thing that physically takes place within a same sex relationship, our minds become pervers in its thinking and it spills over into our physical lives. Any one can be bad and go against the natural order that was put in place - but be warned, and this is not opinion - this is fact so before you rant and rave and go all liberal on me - look it up!! All societys that allowed same sex relationships to be an adopted way of life in such said society's have all fallen by the wayside and crumbled - when rome crumbled that life style was rampid - and there are many others. So no justification or reflex responses - look into it and think about it and then respond - the truth can be a poerful thing as long as we get out of the river of "denial" long enough to find out instead of building false histories in our own minds.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-30T14:49:31.9378016-05:00
"In varying different ways/degrees but all had some degree of acceptence for a union equal to marriage for gays or lesbians." How does a civil union doesn't fit with this?
TBR says2015-04-30T14:51:55.1775114-05:00
Mathgeekjoe - Under what other circumstance would we make a unique law, and why?
debate_power says2015-04-30T15:03:10.8065732-05:00
It seems to me like certain "religious people" would be angry whether or not the definition were changed.
debate_power says2015-04-30T15:04:11.2355843-05:00
@litinin You can't "bend or break the rules of nature". Those are fixed and invariant and form the basis of the entire natural and physical world.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-30T15:04:57.4440056-05:00
How hard is it to add "marriage or civil union" where ever you have marriage in a law? Anyways, why can't you have it be a civil union, it would make a lot less problems than making it the word marriage. Also civil unions would save us from some future problems, but that is getting way into future weird situations.
debate_power says2015-04-30T15:34:17.8419612-05:00
What, is calling it a civil union considered more "correct"? It's in practice the same thing as marriage.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-30T15:36:41.1466367-05:00
"What, is calling it a civil union considered more "correct"?" Believe it or not, there are some people with a very strong belief that marriage is between a man and a women.
TBR says2015-04-30T15:36:48.7762324-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - If they are the exact same, what future problems would there be? We don't make unique laws to suit your religious sensibility.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-30T15:38:11.7627608-05:00
"If they are the exact same, what future problems would there be? We don't make unique laws to suit your religious sensibility." I will write it in PM, it is a little confusing and might derail the poll.
Stefy says2015-07-16T16:42:58.2676466-05:00
Just pointing out guys, homosexuality exists in nature its by definition natural. Science books are great things.
Freakoutimaninja235 says2015-07-16T21:08:34.2744374-05:00
Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman; just because some people don't stick to it doesn't change its definition. This world makes too many allowances for some people while determinedly cutting out other people: for example, in Canada, gay marriage is legal. What is not legal is speaking against it. Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as that. It has gotten so bad that if you even own something that denounces gay marriage, they can throw you in jail or give you a massive fine. Terms like "mother, father, wife, and husband" are being thrown out and replaced by "partner" and "spouse". A homosexual couple is allowed to adopt children now, and it has gone so far that the term "biological parents" is now disused in favour of "legal parents". Tell me now, is this still a question of rights, of equality? Or is a question of who gets to have rights, and who gets to be equal? Because Christians living in Canada will be under heavy persecution for their faith, for their beliefs, and they aren't getting treated equally, now are they? It's war, my friends. There can't be two winners. There never has been. I don't believe they should have ever changed the definition of marriage to suit something that is so unnatural that only a small amount of humans, out of all the living things in the world, do it, and it destroys their bodies. Let's take a look at marriage: what are the reasons that people get married? To have a family together, for one. That is only physically possible between a man and a woman, because the body of a man was made for the body of a woman. This is why men cannot have children with other men- it's going against nature. The same goes for women. Homosexuals have to adopt children that were produced naturally by a man and a woman, or for a lesbian couple one or both women would be artificially inseminated. Another reason to marry is for love. Love is a word that has lost much meaning nowadays. People in fandoms can watch a movie and say they "ship" two guys together, when those two guys are clearly just very good friends or even enemies. Others rave about a book they just read, saying they "loved it". Friends love each other. Families love each other. But I worry that the lines are being blurred between one type of love and another. Why homosexuals would want to marry is beyond me anyway. From what I've seen, they prefer an open relationship where they can sleep with whoever they want to, and marriage would just restrict that freedom. Those are just my thoughts on the matter, so yea. Judge me if you dare.
Stefy says2015-07-17T13:59:20.5969854-05:00
I feel like people who care that much about other peoples very provate and personal business like who they marry and how they define or even use the word love have major control issues.
snowdayk says2018-12-05T03:28:38.0776025Z
I donĀ“t think gay marriage nor civil unions are acceptable.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.