|
Even if I still wasn't 100% comfortable with what the Yes would bring, the Yes world would be much better than the No world for me. It's not the best world for my selfish soul, but it is easily the better choice and the only good choice that had a chance of becoming a reality.
I think you might like this short story Was it Heaven? Or Hell? - by Mark Twain. It asks the question of how selfish we should be willing to be to secure our place in Heaven, and if we are selfish enough to do so if that would really impress God.
|
Do you support adoption by same-sex couples?
Many people will vote no because of that matter - they agree with marriage but not adoption, so to stop this being even a problem, they stop the idea before it is even born in mind of politicians/the people.
Personally, I don't care what people do between each other and see no problem with same-sex pairs adopting kids. I see a problem with people abandoning kids though.
|
I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it?
|
On June 23 2013 20:57 Monsen wrote:
I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it?
If your not confortable with something, most of the times it means that you are not sure if its rigth or wrong. Rigth adn wrong are not objective facts ( imho, you could discuss for hours on this i feel :p). Hopefully, in several years/decades it will be obvious for everyone that gay marriage is the 'rigth' thing, but for now it certainly isnt.
@OP : Congratz! It's not aways easy to put you initial belief aside and give a new look on something.
|
On June 23 2013 20:57 Monsen wrote:
I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it?
Most people link 'what I like' to 'what's right' to validate themselves, and can't conceive of 'something I'm not comfortable with personally but is acceptable for those who do.'
|
On June 23 2013 19:01 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote:
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman. They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
I feel like many homosexuals don't care about the rights at all and merely care about the word, which is an incredibly petty thing to do but I've seen it plenty of times. I completely agree that this is a civil rights issue and that they deserve the same natural rights as the rest of us in terms of being couples. It has a lot more relevancy than just tax exemption. Here is a great resource that concisely lists off everything that a legal marriage today entails between a straight couple and a gay couple in a few States.
However, I don't think a word should be redefined for that. Marriage was not written into law with the intent to persecute gays, it was written into law because that's what the damn definition is. A civic union between a man and a woman. I see a lot of people going on about how it won't affect heterosexual marriages or "family values", but that doesn't provide an argument that the definition of marriage should be changed. We shouldn't be obliged to change definitions based on the assertion that the majority will not be affected.
More pro-gay marriage folk like to bring up the fact that marriage has changed before. Interracial marriages used to be illegal and polygamy used to be legal (and still is in many countries in Northern Africa/Middle East). The fact that something has changed in the past does not mean that it SHOULD have been changed or more importantly that it should be changed further.
Interracial marriage did happen as far back as the Bible -- the one I think of instantly is Samson who falls in love with a Philistine woman -- it's not as drastic of a policy change as you might think. If we wish to change the marriage definitions again we should do it with something a bit more substantial than "it hurts my feelings". Because that's all this is as far as I can see, feelings being hurt that they can't be called the same thing as straight couples even if it means having the same exact rights. Also, a man marrying a man can hardly be compared to a white male marrying an asian female or a man having multiple wives. In both of these cases a union is created between a man and woman.
Something I'll never understand is that no one will call me bigoted or discriminatory or whatever other horrible things for opposing polygamy and drawing a line at gay marriage. Why do those labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage?
Change is not always positive, and I don't think we should be going around just changing the definition of words like this every time a group gains some movement and whines about their feelings being hurt. I hate using a slippery slope fallacy but I feel like it's appropriate here when I say if we give in and change the definition now, what else will be changed in the future?
I support their natural right to the benefits of being a couple, but why does the word need to be changed?
|
I don't see how a new word is needed:
1. a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.
2. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage .
3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
I feel dictionary.com defines the term very well without ever putting any emphasis on it having to be between a man and a woman, except for 2:a, which is immediately followed by 2:b which fixes that issue. That part of the "definition" just comes from Christians etc who feel the need to force their view of what's a good marriage on everyone else, we can all safely ignore that. Christians didn't invent the concept of marriage.
|
I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it.
|
On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it.
I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country.
They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition.
This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion.
|
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name.
|
On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote:
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name.
How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
|
On June 24 2013 00:43 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it. I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country. They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition. This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion.
You do have a very simplistic view of the world. Marriage traditionally being defined as a union between man and a woman is not at all a good argument to not open your mind and be more accepting. I'll admit that expanding the definition of marriage to be more inclusive is more radical than inventing a new term with the same rights attached, but it's the right thing to do based on any sensible moral vision of the world. You can't be bothered to get over gay people existing, yet you will expend huge effort to deny them the ability to marry. I would suggest you rethink your priorities.
|
On June 24 2013 01:19 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 00:43 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote:
I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it. I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country. They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition. This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion. You do have a very simplistic view of the world. Marriage traditionally being defined as a union between man and a woman is not at all a good argument to not open your mind and be more accepting.
Who says I'm not accepting? Where is this coming from. Just because I'm against calling a civil union between a man and a man marriage doesn't mean I hate gay people. Jesus guys, come on. Also, saying something has been legally defined something for 225 years of our countries legal history is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose changing the definition when there is not a single argument against it other than "it hurts my feelings"
I'll admit that expanding the definition of marriage to be more inclusive is more radical than inventing a new term with the same rights attached, but it's the right thing to do based on any sensible moral vision of the world.
Why? Where is this morality coming from? Why is it suddenly moral to change definitions? I thought we had one duty under our Constitution and that is to make sure every single person has their individual freedoms protected under any circumstance. I propose gay couples get the same individual freedoms straight couples get, but I don't see the point of changing the 225 year old legal definition of a word.
You can't be bothered to get over gay people existing, yet you will expend huge effort to deny them the ability to marry. I would suggest you rethink your priorities.
Holy fucking Christ stop this. I've been in a gay relationship before for almost a year and a half and trust me we did a lot more than play minigolf and hold hands. I don't hate gay people. Please, for once, try and think of the possibility that someone might be opposed to radically changing legal definitions of words because of some hurt feelings without hating the mere existence of the group wanting the definition changed.
|
..you are gay? So if you had a partner that you love and you would want to spend the rest of your life with him, you would be okay if people told you: "you can not get married, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for man and woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." , and then you'd simply acquiesce and confirm that indeed, you are not worthy? (omg what about the sanctity of a legal definition!)
|
On June 24 2013 01:35 Grumbels wrote:
So if you have a partner that you love and you would want to spend the rest of your life with him, you would be okay if people told you: "you can not get married, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for man and woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." , you simply acquiesce and confirm that indeed, you are not worthy?
That's a great strawman you've set up there buddy. No one is saying our love "isnt what marriage is about", it's about the freaking definition of a word. It's not about a "title", it's about the god damn rights.
I would have no problem if our natural right to become one under the eyes of the law was protected and would receive all the benefits that straight couples received. We'd still probably call it marriage unofficially because it's convenient but I am not so selfish that I expect a legal definition to be radically rewritten to suit my needs because my feelings might be hurt.
You don't rewrite law over hurt feelings. You rewrite it if peoples legal and natural rights are being infringed upon. Not being given the "title" of marriage is not a natural or individual right being infringed upon anymore than the right of someone who can't call themselves "married" to 20 different women under our current legal definition. Why can't I marry a dog? That's highly offensive for you to say my love is not what marriage is about and is only for a human to human, which a dog is not, so we can't get that title.
|
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs".
|
On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years.
|
On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote:
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs".
What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all.
I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time?
The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before.
P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me.
|
For me my support of same sex marriage came around when I was 12, just before I hit puberty. My first real contact with the conception and the actual existence of homosexuality was through a detailed book on sexuality that was aimed at informing teenagers. It was a pretty old book from the 70s I think, and it had an entire chapter dedicated to talking about homosexuality. No one ever talked about homosexuality when I was little, regardless of whether I was in South Carolina or Boston, and especially not in the extremely homophobic South Korea. But I guess that book made me think rather simply, "I like girls, but I have no real reason for liking them and not boys. I like girls because I like girls, and who is to say that I don't?" With the simplest application of empathy you can realize that such a thing could be used to understand when a boy likes a boy or a girl like a girl. That alone was enough, I think, and I didn't think the Christianity I was brought up on was contradictory to it.
This support of same sex marriage stayed alive through my leaving Christianity, my anti-Christian agnosticism, and my return to Christianity. I think I am becoming more and more orthodox in my Chrisianity as time goes (Protestant and Lutheran leaning) and along with that my support for same sex marriage becomes more enchrenched. I don't want to go into any detailed theology since it's all a complete waste of time to really get into things on this forum, but from my studies it appears that there really is an opening within the concepts of the orthodoxy to make room for same sex relationships. Supporting same sex marriage using the language of leftist political language is such a bore and it's pretty much powerless to actually move a social or religious conservative from their enchrenhed positions. I want to use the language of Christian orthodoxy to fight for a space within the conservatives and I think it's more than possible to do so.
But I think we also have to remember that the Western societies that have or are seeking to give credence to same sex marriage and expression of homosexuality in the midst of society, the West still does impose a particularly Christian conception of love and marriage upon it (in the enshrinement of monogamy and marriage as an expression of a love that is an absolute giving of mind and body, etc.). I personally think this Western Christian sense of love is important and something worth being conservative about, but I think one has to always be mindful of it and question whether or not we actually are fully supporting same sex relationships and expression or if we are only inviting homosexuals as far as they conform to our own ideals that are still essentially Christian - Christian, just secularized.
|
On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote:
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me.
Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned.
I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke)
This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
