afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 12:58:14 GMT -5
They get bogged down with the "marriage" term because separate but equal is inherently unequal. Calling it marriage for straight people, and civil unions for gay people, is ridiculous.
I understand your point that the state should do away with calling it marriage entirely and just call it a civil union for everyone. But let's be realistic. That is never going to happen.
And people fail to recognize that the word "marriage" does have two meanings. Maybe religious people wish it didn't, but it has evolved that way. Marriage is both a ceremony in a religious building consecrated by God, AND a civil license given out by the government. I know many straight couples who only had civil marriages, who wouldn't want to refer to themselves as "unioned."
Religious people only want the word "marriage" to mean only one thing, but you can't just undo how a word has evolved overtime.
I don't know why more people can't be like what HSB said. To religious people/social conservatives, civil marriages aren't true marriages anyway, so who cares if gay people have a civil marriage? They're still not going to be "married" in the eyes of the churches the social conservatives are in.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 12:58:37 GMT -5
Cambridge, again, that is my whole point and from what I deduced, sincebirth's as well. I think we should recognize a civil union. It doesn't "just happen" in either case -- common law marriages withstanding. A man and a woman decide to get married. There are ramifications. There are legal ramifications. Adultery for instance, is now grounds for divorce and could and would play into the division of assets should that occur. That is only one example. Inheritence, in the event of the death of one party is another. I have no problem with similar civil unions between members of the same sex. I just don't get too bogged down with the "marriage" term, and in all honesty, I don't understand why the homosexual movement would either. That's because you can get married and homosexuals cannot. If the concept of "marriage" as a commitment between "one man and one woman" is so sacred to people, I think that they should support laws that only permit a first marriage to be called a "marriage" and any subsequent marriage to be called a "civil union". After all, how sacred is the commitment between one man and one woman when you can mix and match as many times as you want? bah. a bunch of hogwash and hypocrisy. Either it is just semantics, and you shouldn't give a , or you believe homosexuality is somehow inherently less good that heterosexuality. Stop hiding behind pathetic intellectual justifications. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 13:00:06 GMT -5
Marriage? Civil union? Perpetual Wedding Date? I care not what my marriage to my wife is called, nor would I care what anyone else's relationship is called. If two people love one another and wish to commit legally, civilly, religiously, society should erect ramps, not barriers. As long as the dissolution process is the same for all, the unification process should be as well. Huzzah, Elvado. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 13:00:52 GMT -5
Cambridge, again, that is my whole point and from what I deduced, sincebirth's as well. I think we should recognize a civil union. It doesn't "just happen" in either case -- common law marriages withstanding. A man and a woman decide to get married. There are ramifications. There are legal ramifications. Adultery for instance, is now grounds for divorce and could and would play into the division of assets should that occur. That is only one example. Inheritence, in the event of the death of one party is another. I have no problem with similar civil unions between members of the same sex. I just don't get too bogged down with the "marriage" term, and in all honesty, I don't understand why the homosexual movement would either. There is your fundamental misunderstanding, it's not a movement. Not unless you believe you are part of a heterosexual movement. Being gay is not their identity, it is not their reason for being, it is not the center of their lives, it is merely a portion of their being, an asepct of their personality and individuality, unchosen by them, and they are being treated differently from the rest of us. Is the word merely symoblic? Yes, but isn't equality largely about symbolic and semiotic signals. We can tell how people are viewed by the words we use and the institutions we allow them to participate in. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 13:02:37 GMT -5
Cambridge, again, that is my whole point and from what I deduced, sincebirth's as well. I think we should recognize a civil union. It doesn't "just happen" in either case -- common law marriages withstanding. A man and a woman decide to get married. There are ramifications. There are legal ramifications. Adultery for instance, is now grounds for divorce and could and would play into the division of assets should that occur. That is only one example. Inheritence, in the event of the death of one party is another. I have no problem with similar civil unions between members of the same sex. I just don't get too bogged down with the "marriage" term, and in all honesty, I don't understand why the homosexual movement would either. That's because you can get married and homosexuals cannot. So true. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 6, 2008 13:02:57 GMT -5
Oh, and the second reference when you Google "As goes California, so goes the nation", is the below article. Gay marriage defenders are not shy about using the decision as a precedent for other states, so those opposing it should have no compunction about fighting it. Yes, applying the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike on the social mores of people in other states is a super way of running a country. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 13:03:22 GMT -5
Sometimes I think people just like to argue. Forget about marriage for a second and consider my hypothetical situation with the man and his beloved nephew. To everyone, I would think that his nephew was "just like a son." Fundamentally, everything was essentially the same as if it were his son. The fact that it isn't technically his son shouldn't in any way lessen their relationship. How am I "hiding behind pthetic intellectual justifications?"
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 13:04:55 GMT -5
We can tell how people are viewed by the words we use and the institutions we allow them to participate in. That's why. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 13:04:51 GMT -5
Cambridge, again, that is my whole point and from what I deduced, sincebirth's as well. I think we should recognize a civil union. It doesn't "just happen" in either case -- common law marriages withstanding. A man and a woman decide to get married. There are ramifications. There are legal ramifications. Adultery for instance, is now grounds for divorce and could and would play into the division of assets should that occur. That is only one example. Inheritence, in the event of the death of one party is another. I have no problem with similar civil unions between members of the same sex. I just don't get too bogged down with the "marriage" term, and in all honesty, I don't understand why the homosexual movement would either. There is your fundamental misunderstanding, it's not a movement. Not unless you believe you are part of a heterosexual movement. Being gay is not their identity, it is not their reason for being, it is not the center of their lives, it is merely a portion of their being, an asepct of their personality and individuality, unchosen by them, and they are being treated differently from the rest of us. Is the word merely symoblic? Yes, but isn't equality largely about symbolic and semiotic signals. We can tell how people are viewed by the words we use and the institutions we allow them to participate in. Bad choice of words. I sort of knew that when I wrote it. I was just trying to find a word to identify those who are taking the issue up as their cause. I didn't mean anything positive or negative in the slightest. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 13:13:44 GMT -5
Sometimes I think people just like to argue. Forget about marriage for a second and consider my hypothetical situation with the man and his beloved nephew. To everyone, I would think that his nephew was "just like a son." Fundamentally, everything was essentially the same as if it were his son. The fact that it isn't technically his son shouldn't in any way lessen their relationship. How am I "hiding behind pthetic intellectual justifications?" Not arguing for the sake of arguing -- far from it here. Your analogy is both intellectually dishonest and fails to support your argument. Being a child or parent is not something that is always chosen. And furthermore, in this example, I believe that the man could formally adopt his nephew as his son, call him son, and so on. The state allows you to legally adopt someone and call someone your child. Marriage, however, is ALWAYS something you choose. People aren't born married. And so to deny some people the right to make that choice--that FUNDAMENTAL choice that is at the essence of what it means to be human--is flat-out wrong. In other words, in attempting to prove your justifications weren't pathetic, you did exactly that. Well done. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 13:16:29 GMT -5
Furthermore, I speak this from the perspective of someone who just got married. I loved it, and nothing was better for me than to be able to say, in front of my friends and family and in the presence of God, that I will love and honor and cherish my wife for the rest of our lives. The fact that one of my groomsmen can't do the same in most states is so unbelievably frustrating it makes me pull my hair out.
Faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. Why then should recognition of that love be denied to some?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 6, 2008 13:21:41 GMT -5
Amen. Moreover, not intending to start a fight or biology discussion, can anyone credibly believe, given the basic intolerance experienced by homosexual individuals each and every day, that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?
As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is as random and immutable as hair color,eye color, height, etc. To discriminate based upon immutable characteristics of any indivdidual is just wrong, not to mention inhuman.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 13:23:19 GMT -5
I know several people at Georgetown who believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
However, they're also the same people that don't believe in evolution. >_<
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 13:24:05 GMT -5
Ok, this is ridiculous. Forget about adoption for a minute. I understand that could be an option. But if it weren't or for that matter even if it were, but for whatever reason the uncle didn't want to/didn't get around to it etc... Would that change the situation? I contend that it wouldn't. For some reason, you seem to think otherwise.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 6, 2008 13:25:23 GMT -5
If the concept of "marriage" as a commitment between "one man and one woman" is so sacred to people, I think that they should support laws that only permit a first marriage to be called a "marriage" and any subsequent marriage to be called a "civil union". After all, how sacred is the commitment between one man and one woman when you can mix and match as many times as you want? I could buy that. I bring it up at the next council of evil meeting. I'd hope though that there'd be some kind of consideration given to the re-marriage of widows/widowers who were not responsible for the death of their first spouse, but otherwise this is brilliant. Thanks 'tables! |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 13:29:06 GMT -5
Ok, this is ridiculous. Forget about adoption for a minute. I understand that could be an option. But if it weren't or for that matter even if it were, but for whatever reason the uncle didn't want to/didn't get around to it etc... Would that change the situation? I contend that it wouldn't. For some reason, you seem to think otherwise. There is no stigma associated with being a person who is raising a child without ever going through the process of legally adopting them. So, an uncle raising his nephew, legally adopted or not, would not be viewed any differently. There is a huge stigma associated with being gay in our society. They face constant, daily discrimination. Most people in this country are still not comfortable with the idea of homsexuality in general, let alone giving homosexuals more rights. And gay couples just want the same legal rights as straight couples. Moreover, no one is stopping that uncle from legally adopting his nephew. He has a choice. Gay people don't. I quite frankly cannot understand how you are comparing these two situations. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 6, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5
I know several people at Georgetown who believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. That's stupid. Everyone knows that homosexuals are born that way, which is why it's possible to cure it with pharmaceuticals and/or gene therapy. Can you imagine the implications once it becomes possible to screen fetuses for the "gay gene" while they're still in the womb? You think all those religious whackos will stay anti-abortion! Ha, fat chance. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 13:39:01 GMT -5
Ok, this is ridiculous. Forget about adoption for a minute. I understand that could be an option. But if it weren't or for that matter even if it were, but for whatever reason the uncle didn't want to/didn't get around to it etc... Would that change the situation? I contend that it wouldn't. For some reason, you seem to think otherwise. There is no stigma associated with being a person who is raising a child without ever going through the process of legally adopting them. So, an uncle raising his nephew, legally adopted or not, would not be viewed any differently. There is a huge stigma associated with being gay in our society. They face constant, daily discrimination. Most people in this country are still not comfortable with the idea of homsexuality in general, let alone giving homosexuals more rights. And gay couples just want the same legal rights as straight couples. Moreover, no one is stopping that uncle from legally adopting his nephew. He has a choice. Gay people don't. I quite frankly cannot understand how you are comparing these two situations. I think you are taking my analogy the wrong way. I'm not comparing their situations, but solely the terms "son" to "married." Once again, I think that homosexual couples should be able to voluntarily enter into a union, just as heterosexual couples can. I just don't see any reason to attempt to worry about the "marriage" term. I don't see any merit and I think focusing on the semantics is probably counterproductive for those who advocating homosexual rights. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 6, 2008 13:41:08 GMT -5
That is the problem right there. Hifi refers to "homosexual rights". They don't want "homosexual rights". They want American civil rights and damn well should have them.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 13:46:57 GMT -5
That is the problem right there. Hifi refers to "homosexual rights". They don't want "homosexual rights". They want American civil rights and damn well should have them. Thank you thank you thank you thank you. I'm also tired of hearing straight people say that gay people shouldn't care so much about the word and it's just "semantics." Plenty of people have pointed out that words are more than just semantics. It's a measure of how we treat people in our society. Even if a "marriage" and a "civil union" had the legal same rights and benefits, we're still deeming and entire segment of our society as substandard, as not good enough to be able to use the word we do. |
|
