|
On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected.
The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same.
|
On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same.
I didn't know gay people were unable to have children, I must have missed that biology class. Is it a gene?
|
United States37500 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:00 LuckyFool wrote:Nice discussion. I enjoyed reading through the thread so far and agree with Fruscainte 100%. I find all too often what gets lost in the debate of whether or not one supports gay marriage is the actual definition and concept of what marriage is and why the government or any form of legal system needs to acknowledge it in the first place. As Fruscainte has said, marriage for 225 years has been defined as a union between a man and a women, to demand a restructuring of this definition and demand everyone recognize and change their views of the issue purely off of a choice some people make with their personal life is wrong. A marriage between a man and a women could result in children which is the primary reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place. Sure there are marriages between a man and a women that do not result in children, but a same sex marriage naturally can never result in children. I don't have anything against gay "marriage" as a concept but it is and never will be marriage in terms of ability to produce a child without external means. Changing the definition of marriage just to make a group of people feel better about their personal choices in life seems like it's doing a disrespect to what marriage is all about as it stands and is what I have a problem with, not the people or individuals at all. I really hate how as soon as anyone stands up for defending the definition of marriage it suddenly gets construed into "How can you be such a hateful bigot? How can you not support gay marriage?" It's the same thing as somebody saying do you support a square circle? You don't because it naturally doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, and yet when you try to say that you're questioned as to "But how can you be so close minded and hateful towards it?" I don't hate the object itself, I just don't believe in changing my viewpoints to fit in with something that doesn't make sense from a natural standpoint. square circle argument shamelessly stolen from Ryan Anderson during a fairly recent exchange he had with Piers Morgan on gay marriage, really sums up my thoughts on the subject in a pretty clear and concise way. + Show Spoiler +
That entire video, Ryan Anderson cannot answer a single direct question. Suze wants to know about all the legal/tax benefits given to a man/woman married couple but not given to a woman/woman union. Ryan goes off to talk about how marriage is important for the sake of children?
The square circle argument is for semantics. Conservatives can keep that term all they want if the same rights and benefits were applied to these so called "civil unions". It's not trying to make homosexual couples feel better about themselves. It's the inequality they suffer compare to heterosexual couples. You really think a gay couple getting married is going to disrespect a man/woman who is already married? "Our marriage is worth less now that that gay couple down the street got married".
|
On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense.
Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc.
|
On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected.
No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children.
There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ?
|
On June 24 2013 06:33 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same. I didn't know gay people were unable to have children, I must have missed that biology class. Is it a gene?
I don't know why you're being so facetious :|
Also that video was amazing. Lesbian girl started out her argument with a complete insult and just went on a rant saying how ignorant the guy was and the crowd was clearly picked to be full of liberals who supported Piers. Glad we have unbiased reporting there, CNN. Literal Fox News tactics, put a person of opposing view in a crowded room of people on your side and shout them down and make them look stupid.
They just called him unamerican, untolerant, and ignorant and didn't allow him to speak at all and continued saying how he doesnt want gay people to be allowed to love each other. All the guy was saying was that it isn't a Constitutional issue and the Supreme Court has no business legislating it on that note and it should be put up to the democratic process' in each State. If it's such an overwhelming majority like this lady says, it should be cut and dry to vote it in.
|
United States37500 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc.
I never understood this jump of how supporting gay marriage is the gateway to widowed siblings getting married, bestiality, polygamy, etc.
|
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet.
|
On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc.
The nature of relationship between a man and a woman has changed a lot on a very fondamental level in the past sixty years, I suggest you open a history book. Yes mariage can result in children, but it does not need to, and you don't need it to get children, that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes the fact that a couple has children or not has no implication on their right to marry, that's precisely what I'm saying. That wouldn't change if we allowed gay couples to marry.
As for your second paragraph, it's disgusting. A change in the legal definition of marriage would not mean marriage would suddenly mean nothing, what ? And more importantly the rest is just a slippery slope argument, which not only is completely idiotic, but downright offensive. Gay marriage and bestiality in the same thread, you should be ashamed.
|
On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote:
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet.
The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning.
I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference.
To the day I die I'll never understand why liberals are so prone to just outright insulting people who disagree with them.
@corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage?
|
On June 24 2013 06:39 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc. I never understood this jump of how supporting gay marriage is the gateway to widowed siblings getting married, bestiality, polygamy, etc.
all of it is arbitrary in some sense. people make that argument thinking it's somehow important to have consistent criteria for marriage, but it's just pick and choose what you like. the slippery slope argument starts from the premise that society has no control over the definition. if people really cared about poly-relationships then I'm all for having poly marriage, if we had intelligent humanoid dogs then yay bestiality. but that's not the case and so basically that will never be the definition of marriage, meanwhile we do have homosexuality which is for all intents and purposes an 'equal' sexual orientation to heterosexuality yet despite that is discriminated against so it makes sense to expand marriage this way.
|
On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote:
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage?
Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though.
See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose.
|
On June 24 2013 06:34 NeoIllusions wrote:
That entire video, Ryan Anderson cannot answer a single direct question. Suze wants to know about all the legal/tax benefits given to a man/woman married couple but not given to a woman/woman union. Ryan goes off to talk about how marriage is important for the sake of children?
The square circle argument is for semantics. Conservatives can keep that term all they want if the same rights and benefits were applied to these so called "civil unions". It's not trying to make homosexual couples feel better about themselves. It's the inequality they suffer compare to heterosexual couples. You really think a gay couple getting married is going to disrespect a man/woman who is already married? "Our marriage is worth less now that that gay couple down the street got married".
He can't answer a direct question because gay marriage isn't something you can say you support or don't support unless you change the definition of marriage.
It's really quite sad how liberal mainstream forces uneducated conservatives into a hole this way through such a seemingly simple question. As they say, the one who frames the debate wins the debate...
"Do you support gay marriage?" If the answer is yes you must change your personal definition of marriage, if the answer is no, you are a horrible bigot who hates Suze and isn't for equality. How can a conservative possibly respond to this question? It's important not to get bogged down in rhetoric on a superficial level and address the heart of the issue which really IS the redefinition of what marriage is.
|
On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote:
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose.
I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight.
How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself"
Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues?
|
United States37500 Posts
Alright, after giving this some thought in the shower, this is what I've come up with. (damn you haji, I usually don't wallow on such issues, I just stick to my own beliefs.)
Gays want to be married because they love each other but also because there are a lot of legal benefits. From a few seconds on Google, I found that married couples benefit from:
- filing joint income tax
- social security and retirement benefits
- health insurance
- death benefits/funeral arrangements
- etc
Now if your argument is solely on the sanctity of "marriage", you should be trying your damnedest to get gay couple the benefits listed above. It would be the quickest and essentially a surefire way to "protect marriage between man and woman" while not discriminating others in society. I'm sure not all gays would be happy with the semantics of "marriage" (they'd have to call their relationship a "civil union" as to not displease conservative parties), I strongly believe that is the main issue (the inequality). While they don't need a sheet of paper declaring their relationship valid, gays currently are at a disadvantage from a legal/social standpoint.
So ask yourself this, are you ok with gay couples getting the benefits I listed above? If you say yes and you still don't want them to get married, then ok. I actually trust that you're defending the conservative definition of marriage. If you don't want gays to get married and don't want to give them rights, then it's obviously nothing to do with marriage in the first place. You simply don't like homosexuality.
Edit:
On June 24 2013 06:58 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote:
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose. I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight. How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself" Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues?
They don't get the same federally recognized rights... that's a big point.
|
Interesting how you take such careful consideration upon the political nature of this controversial topic. I say that because politicians, whether they support it or not, support it for their own motives and not nesecarily for the wellfare of the people. For example, someone who is opposed to gay marriage might simply trying to be seen as more popular upon their target voting group compared to someone tryign to reach out to the target groups that support gay marraige.
I am a humanitarian at heart, and I support gay marriage. I come from a conservative christian background too, but that background has just showed me how flawed those beliefs can truly be and that I can't take anything for granted
edit: There used to be a time when it was frowned upon when a black man married a white woman, and now a couple hundred years later, same sex marriage is now the topic in the spotlight, although same sex relationships have, although on a more secretive basis, have been around for centuries
|
It's funny how most of the supporters of gay marriage automatically assume that they are talking to ignorant bigots when someone says they are not in favor of gay marriage.
Im reading some good arguments from both sides and so think it is a debatable issue but one side is definitely more aggressive than the other 
|
On June 24 2013 06:58 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote:
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose. I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight. How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself" Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues?
The you should be ashamed of yourself was aimed at a very specific argument you used, which contrary to all your other ones was downright stupid.
Personnally I can't think of a single argument why we shouldn't use the world marriage that has hold itself through this debate. I'd love you to answer this one question in particular :
What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ?
If you can't answer that, you're being discriminatory in my eyes.
And lol at the ad hominem. I don't know if you read the news, but France recently changed its law to allow same sex marriage, which resulted in a huge debate. Funnily enough, every gay I know (and I know quite a few) agreed with the law. On a larger scale, it was pretty clear from the debates that there were some gay that disagreed with the law, more or less for the same reasons as you do. They were also a clear minority.
I live in a country were marriage's meaning has undergone the very change you're fighting. We're doing fine, thank you.
|
On June 23 2013 19:48 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:28 Catch]22 wrote:Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple? I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do The state wouldn't NEED to force Church to redefine marriage if the term marriage was never in the state legislation to begin with. The religions can just do whatever they like, their opinion wouldn't matter. If what we know as "marriage" was simply defined as something like an union between two consenting adult citizens with a set of benefits and specific treatment, there would never have been any obstacles to homosexual couples. However, if you borrow the term and definition of marriage, you not only have an archaic term and definition that can't stand the test of time, but you also empower the religion to be the moral authority on the subject and judge what can and can't be a marriage in the future.
The government can't force the Church to marry gay couples anyway. The problem is that the Church has it's own definition of marriage, and the government has it's own one. The government wants to change their one to include gay couples. The church doesn't like it having the same name as their one while being different.
The problem is that we've come to adopt this religious term as the basis for what constitutes a complete "civil union" regardless of whether there is any religious aspect to it.
|
On June 23 2013 18:51 Talin wrote:
I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
I think this is pretty much correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
