Why Is There Such Controversy Around Same-Sex Marriages

[Shanice_101]

Why do people kick up a big fuss about 2 people from the same gender wanting to get married? Isn't all love just the same ?

[ummmm]

Religion plays a big part in peoples attitudes.

[friedgreentomato]

don't forget the age mentality as well!

[sara3]

and a fear that it just might happen to them ;o)

[jno]

actually, I think it's more than just religion; for many people, particularly of my generation, "marriage" is simply the word for something one woman and one man do, and it's hard to shake off a notion so deeply inbred.

I don't have any objection to gay marriages being permitted. But I think that to me, deep down, they'll always be gay marriages rather than just marriages.

[Old_Geezer]

May be any numbr of reasons. Maybe part of it is the fact that marriage by definition involves different genders and so to legalise same gender marriage one had to ignore/change the definiton.

Not sure what marriage has to do with love though. There are plently of loveless marriages and plenty of unmarried but loving couples. Maybe the way folk try to muddy the discussion by bringing irrelevant things into it, isn't helping.

[ummmm]

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve...!

(that is not my opinion, btw, I think people should be free to marry who they chose)

[jake-the-peg]

It's a fight about who owns the institution of marriage

If you go back far enough religion stepped in and appropriated a tendency for people to pair up and set a framework around it giving a ceremony and vows etc.

Then the state started to get involved and marriages were recorded for non-religious reasons and eventually you got civil marriages at registry offices.

So it's never been properly clear as to whether marriage is a religious or state institution.

Many religions see homosexuality as wrong and sinful and would never countinance homosexual marriage.

It throws into sharp relief the question of who 'owns' marriage

[jno]

jake, actually, from memory I think the church moved in on marriage when the framework was already there, though I could be wrong.

But as I said, I think there's more to the opposition than just religion, though bishops seem to be the loudest opponents.

[ludwig]

Jake has it right. Religions believe that they not the state own the concept of marriage, and as such only they can get to define what it means.

They could well be right. I'm not sure and don't care much. It's just a word to me really.

It's one of those things where the immovable object that is the anachronistic dogma of religion is coming up against the unstoppable force that is the inevitable change in definitions of social justice and human rights.
My money's on the unstoppable force.

[Snafu03]

would be good to hear from people who are opposed to it, but also non religious.

[WyeDyed]

The C of E defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing children (I paraphrase)
Cracks start to show when the Church permits a union where one or both are beyond child bearing age.
After that is a bit of a slippery slope towards modern thinking.

[whiskeryron]

// Many religions see homosexuality as wrong and sinful and would never countinance homosexual marriage.//

Thank you jake for saying it as it is. I object very strongly to our splendid word GAY being hijacked by any group of people for there own use whoever they are.

WR.

[jomifl]

For me the problem is the change of the meaning of the word. Marriage has always meant a union or coupling of 2 people of different sex and I think it should continue to have he same meaning. I have no problems with gays being legally coupled, why can't they think up their own word for a gay union, such a 'garriage' or gayple. There is no doubt that a gay relationship is different from a heterosexual one so why have the same word.

[ummmm]

Why is it different?

Not all married couples plan to have children.

[ludwig]

// There is no doubt that a gay relationship is different from a heterosexual one so why have the same word. //

Because they want the same rights as straight couples, one of which includes being able to say 'We're married', without being factually incorrect.
It's a load of fuss over a word, but then I'm not gay or religious, so that's easy for me to say.

[WyeDyed]

I was referring to the Church's definition of marriage.
I am not married but have been in a relationship for over 25 years.
I don't see the point.

[FredPuli43]

WyeDyed, the "marriage is just a piece of paper" argument has been the despair of lawyers and, ultimately, of partners for decades. So is a cheque or a will "just a bit of paper". The consequences of not being married to a partner are very significant, both in death and life. Lack of a will only has adverse consequences on death.

The churches object to the word marriage. They probably object to civil unions too; haven't noticed them rushing to create a church service for such a union. They have feared that they may be forced to conduct gay marriages. This appears to be ill-founded. Their antipathy to gays and, in some churches, to women as priests, shows a certain lack of understanding of the C21.

[LazyGun]

@WR you can continue to use the word Gay. Its not been exclusively co-opted and still retains the same dictionary definition. I should continue to use the word with gay abandon, were I you........

As to why the controversy - religion plus culture plus generational attitudes = resistance to change.

institutions change. Biases and phobias change. Its part of the human condition. 2 gay people wishing to be recognised in law and in society as being married should be no problem for anyone. It does not threaten the foundations of our civilisation, it does not invalidate other marriages.

Churches should grow up, and recognise that if they wish to retain their mass attraction, they need to move with the times...

[jomifl]

Umm it is different because the words homosexual and heterosexual are different, the words man and woman are different. I just don't like the blurring of meanings and stealing of words when there are plenty of letters available to make new ones.

[jake-the-peg]

The hijacking of the word 'Gay' has an interesting history.

It was appropriated to mean homosexual to the dismay of some but in return it has been approriated to mean something bad in the sense 'Hey man that's a really gay dog you've got there!' which in turn has upset the gay rights people.

Because the OED operates a 'Once it's in it never comes out' policy that in effect is that - Language moves on and there's no controlling it.

Homosexual is also interesting as a word - a lot of people think it refers to male-male relationships only mistaking the latin Homo (man) for the Greek Homo (same) as in Homogeneous.

In fact there's a fair argument to reinterpret it in that way if its use is sufficiently popular in that sense.

Tricky thing the English language